Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

SUPREME COURT 5-18-15: Felons May Sell Or Transfer Owned Guns To Another.

N320AWN320AW Senior MemberPosts: 648 Senior Member
The U.S. Supreme court ruled unanimously today that convicted felons may sell or transfer their guns rather than have them confiscated by the government. The government in this case would be any political subdivision, local, state or federal.

Here's more:

" The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that a convicted felon may ask a court to transfer his guns to a third party, rather than relinquishing them to the government."

"The decision in Henderson v. United States could have a significant impact, given how many Americans are convicted of felonies. If a person is convicted of a felony that is punishable by at least a year in prison, federal law bars that person from possessing a firearm. However, Monday's ruling affirms that the government cannot simply seize any firearms the convicted felon owned."

"The case focused on Tony Henderson, a former U.S. border patrol agent who was busted for dealing small amounts of marijuana. He was sentenced to six months in jail and served his time. The former officer had turned his personal gun collection over to the court during his legal proceedings, and the government kept his weapons after his conviction because felons are barred from possessing firearms."

"Since the firearms -- some of them family heirlooms -- had no connection to his crime, Henderson asked the government to transfer them to a third party who could then pay him for them. His request was denied."


Nice going Supreme court! :applause:

Replies

  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,984 Senior Member
    Maybe this will be the beginning of the end of "Civil Forfeiture".
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • GunnerK19GunnerK19 Senior Member Posts: 1,095 Senior Member
    SCOTUS did something right? Idunbilivit.
    I'm a Conservative. How conservative? Only Alex P. Keaton has me beat.

    Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA, Pietta 1860 .44 snubnose
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,575 Senior Member
    I didn't read it as felons may sell or transfer guns to another. What you posted was the felon can petition the court to transfer these guns to another. Big difference.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,577 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    The U.S. Supreme court ruled unanimously today that convicted felons may sell or transfer their guns rather than have them confiscated by the government. The government in this case would be any political subdivision, local, state or federal.

    Here's more:

    " The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that a convicted felon may ask a court to transfer his guns to a third party, rather than relinquishing them to the government."

    "The decision in Henderson v. United States could have a significant impact, given how many Americans are convicted of felonies. If a person is convicted of a felony that is punishable by at least a year in prison, federal law bars that person from possessing a firearm. However, Monday's ruling affirms that the government cannot simply seize any firearms the convicted felon owned."

    "The case focused on Tony Henderson, a former U.S. border patrol agent who was busted for dealing small amounts of marijuana. He was sentenced to six months in jail and served his time. The former officer had turned his personal gun collection over to the court during his legal proceedings, and the government kept his weapons after his conviction because felons are barred from possessing firearms."

    "Since the firearms -- some of them family heirlooms -- had no connection to his crime, Henderson asked the government to transfer them to a third party who could then pay him for them. His request was denied."


    Nice going Supreme court! :applause:

    Sounds nice at its face.

    Convicted felons will just, what, transfer them to their moms and grandmas? Still accessible.

    Hopefully this doesn't apply to violent felony offenders.. a paper crime felon I could see, I guess. Like passing a fake check or something.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    GunnerK19 wrote: »
    SCOTUS did something right? Idunbilivit.

    Hey, SCOTUS does a lot right. You still have your firearms. DC v. Heller to name one.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I didn't read it as felons may sell or transfer guns to another. What you posted was the felon can petition the court to transfer these guns to another. Big difference.

    Yes very big. Because the felon still can't transfer them to another Felon! I take this to mean, if say one of us would be convicted of a felony by some technicality, then we could have our guns transferred to one of our kids or other relatives or close friends. Not quite the same as "Scar Face" going to the joint and giving all his guns to "Lucky" who might be another felon on the run.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,577 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Yes very big. Because the felon still can't transfer them to another Felon! I take this to mean, if say one of us would be convicted of a felony by some technicality, then we could have our guns transferred to one of our kids or other relatives or close friends. Not quite the same as "Scar Face" going to the joint and giving all his guns to "Lucky" who might be another felon on the run.

    Yes, but can Joe Bank Robber transfer his guns to his dear ole momma who is not a felon...but lives 2 houses down?
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,575 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Yes, but can Joe Bank Robber transfer his guns to his dear ole momma who is not a felon...but lives 2 houses down?

    He can't transfer the guns at all, according to the article. The court has to decide whom to transfer them. Probably to his lawyer to pay his legal fees.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,043 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    He can't transfer the guns at all, according to the article. The court has to decide whom to transfer them. Probably to his lawyer to pay his legal fees.

    Probably.

    hOwever, it is nice if you have an heirloom firearm one would be able to keep it in the family (maybe put into a trust for minor children) and not have it torch cut and used in some antianti-gun piece of "art"
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    I think a BIG point is being missed here. Someone convicted of a felony does not normally have his house, land, vehicles, bank account, and other personal property seized by the 'authorities' and sold or otherwise disposed of by said 'authorities', unless said personal property was used in a crime. Just the guns.

    The guns should be able to be sold, or otherwise transferred, by the person, PERIOD!

    And to head off 'certain persons', there are MANY non violent felonies in which firearms played no part whatsoever.

    And a felon that has served their sentence has 'paid their debt' to the system and should have all rights restored on release. Otherwise, they are serving the equivalent of a life sentence, and the sentence they served was just a lie, or at best, a down-payment on the life sentence it actually is in reality. And some states bar a convicted felon from voting for life.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,575 Senior Member
    Well, there are consequences to being a felon. Felons can't own firearms or vote. They can own houses, property, bank accounts no included in the crime they're charged with. No law prevents them from doing so, while firearms possession is prohibited and has been for centuries.

    A felon can apply to have his rights restored after serving his sentence. Not really a life sentence, since they're restorable.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Well, there are consequences to being a felon. Felons can't own firearms or vote. They can own houses, property, bank accounts no included in the crime they're charged with. No law prevents them from doing so, while firearms possession is prohibited and has been for centuries.

    A felon can apply to have his rights restored after serving his sentence. Not really a life sentence, since they're restorable.

    Example: Felon serves sentence for non-violent felony, as in theft over $1,000. Felon is released, gets job and becomes productive citizen, pays taxes, but can't vote. I guess some people are for taxation without representation. Funny how that works.

    Possession of firearms by a felon hasn't been the law for centuries, but thanks for playing.

    Restoration of rights is theoretically possible in state courts, but if it was a Federal sentence, good luck with that, and hope you're on Hillary's charity list because you're gonna need a boatload of money either way.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Sounds nice at its face.

    Convicted felons will just, what, transfer them to their moms and grandmas? Still accessible.

    Hopefully this doesn't apply to violent felony offenders.. a paper crime felon I could see, I guess. Like passing a fake check or something.

    ACCESSABILTY has nothing to do with this no matter the crime. These weapons can be transferred to anyone who is eligible. Should the court say a convicted felon can transfer or sell his firearm to someone 100, 500, or 1000 miles away? Of course not.

    Also, a convicted felon who has committed a so-called "white color" crime can petition the court to have his gun rights restored. This is usually granted if the crime was not a forcible felony.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,575 Senior Member
    I have little use for felons. The recidivism rate of felons is astounding. The rate of felons who become contributing members of society compared to those who continue to rape, rob, murder, and steal has got to be small.

    I don't think child molesters, armed robbers (or unarmed robbers) and non-violent felons (burglars) deserve the automatic right to have firearms or to vote. In the first case, they have lost the right to have guns, in the second case they must demonstrate they are "good" people. Then, maybe they can regain their rights they voluntarily gave up.

    To hell with them.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I have little use for felons. The recidivism rate of felons is astounding. The rate of felons who become contributing members of society compared to those who continue to rape, rob, murder, and steal has got to be small.

    I don't think child molesters, armed robbers (or unarmed robbers) and non-violent felons (burglars) deserve the automatic right to have firearms or to vote. In the first case, they have lost the right to have guns, in the second case they must demonstrate they are "good" people. Then, maybe they can regain their rights they voluntarily gave up.

    To hell with them.


    I'm with Mike on this, and I've said it before. I also think that for non-repeat, non-violent felons there should be no 'lifetime' penalty. For those who are violent or who can't seem to make the switch to live within the boundaries set by society, bring out the ban hammer.:banned:

    For molesters and such, there needs to be a different approach to their punishment... 20 to life for starters, LWOP for baddies and a one-way all expense paid trip to hell for the worst offenders.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,577 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    ACCESSABILTY has nothing to do with this no matter the crime. These weapons can be transferred to anyone who is eligible. Should the court say a convicted felon can transfer or sell his firearm to someone 100, 500, or 1000 miles away? Of course not.

    Also, a convicted felon who has committed a so-called "white color" crime can petition the court to have his gun rights restored. This is usually granted if the crime was not a forcible felony.

    Well then this ruling is pretty dumb. Isn't a felon's lack of a right to own a firearm all about limiting their accessibility to them?
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Well then this ruling is pretty dumb. Isn't a felon's lack of a right to own a firearm all about limiting their accessibility to them?


    Has that ever actually worked? Anywhere?
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,577 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Has that ever actually worked? Anywhere?

    I'm sure it has. But this is a legal decision without much credence. It's all fine for white collar felons, I guess. But the violent ones? Hopefully states step in and make necessary legal measures at the state level regarding violent felons and their firearms.

    And the only thing sure to keep a felon away from a gun is a life long prison sentence.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,575 Senior Member
    I've seen a whole lot of felons in my life. Some would do fine and become productive citizens, have the right to vote and own weapons, others shouldn't be trusted with a butter knife. Blanket restoration of gun rights isn't productive, and trying to decide which felons deserve these rights and which don't would basically come down to a judge or someone else making a decision, at the end of the day.

    Most non-violent felons have the option of "First Offender," which pretty much restores all rights after a period of time.

    Reality is what it is. Long-term Incarceration of felons, even violent felons, is something we citizens simply can't afford. It costs a LOT of money to house, feed, and control a prisoner. As unsatisfactory as this situation is, most of us reluctantly accept it because we don't want to spend the tax money. How many new prisons are being built in the US?

    So we law-abiding citizens put up with revolving doors and hopefully arm ourselves legally as a defense against those felons who arm themselves illegally to take what we have.

    In GA, and possibly other states, an arrest for domestic violence will get your CCW pulled or deny you a CCW. But not an arrest for simple battery. This can be wrong in some instances. A friend of mine's SIL was abusing my friend's daughter, he beat the crap out of him and got arrested. Because it was "domestic violence" he could have lost his rights. (I don't know if he did.) If it had been a stranger, no problem.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Well then this ruling is pretty dumb. Isn't a felon's lack of a right to own a firearm all about limiting their accessibility to them?

    No. Think about it for a moment. By limiting accessibility that would preclude a felon from doing all kinds of things. Dad has a gun, but I can't go to see him at his home! My friends have guns and want me to go target shooting, as an observer, but no I can't! And the list goes on and on. In fact, it could be that imposing such ridiculous regulations. . . might be protected by the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights.
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I've seen a whole lot of felons in my life. Some would do fine and become productive citizens, have the right to vote and own weapons, others shouldn't be trusted with a butter knife. Blanket restoration of gun rights isn't productive, and trying to decide which felons deserve these rights and which don't would basically come down to a judge or someone else making a decision, at the end of the day.

    Most non-violent felons have the option of "First Offender," which pretty much restores all rights after a period of time.

    Reality is what it is. Long-term Incarceration of felons, even violent felons, is something we citizens simply can't afford. It costs a LOT of money to house, feed, and control a prisoner. As unsatisfactory as this situation is, most of us reluctantly accept it because we don't want to spend the tax money. How many new prisons are being built in the US?

    So we law-abiding citizens put up with revolving doors and hopefully arm ourselves legally as a defense against those felons who arm themselves illegally to take what we have.

    In GA, and possibly other states, an arrest for domestic violence will get your CCW pulled or deny you a CCW. But not an arrest for simple battery. This can be wrong in some instances. A friend of mine's SIL was abusing my friend's daughter, he beat the crap out of him and got arrested. Because it was "domestic violence" he could have lost his rights. (I don't know if he did.) If it had been a stranger, no problem.

    I'll bet he did lose them. A stranger committing simple battery would not come under domestic violence anyway.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,577 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    No. Think about it for a moment. By limiting accessibility that would preclude a felon from doing all kinds of things. Dad has a gun, but I can't go to see him at his home! My friends have guns and want me to go target shooting, as an observer, but no I can't! And the list goes on and on. In fact, it could be that imposing such ridiculous regulations. . . might be protected by the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights.

    Not talking about non-violent convicted felons here...

    Violent ass holes. Scum of the earth. Do you think they. WON'T get access to guns in the shadow of this decision?
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Not talking about non-violent convicted felons here...

    Violent ass holes. Scum of the earth. Do you think they. WON'T get access to guns in the shadow of this decision?

    You can bet these types will access firearms off the streets. That's easy to do no matter what your criminal history is. I don't think street vendors of firearms are going to do a background check on anyone with cash.

    I totally agree that these low-life types should never have possession of a gun, but what's the answer? Here in Georgia the minimum sentence for a convicted felon possessing a firearm is 10 years in State prison. Probably not enough, but considering the extent of bad guys crimes, the judge could have these guys making license plates for decades.
  • GunnerK19GunnerK19 Senior Member Posts: 1,095 Senior Member
    Did you see where Ray Rice got his Domestic Violence charges dropped after attending Anger Management class and paying $125? He's still a DV abuser, there's no doubt of that, but will the Lautenberg Amendment apply to this guy even if the charges were dropped?

    I'd be rather upset to find out this piece of work could still legally possess firearms where for instance someone who writes bad checks cannot.
    I'm a Conservative. How conservative? Only Alex P. Keaton has me beat.

    Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA, Pietta 1860 .44 snubnose
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Not talking about non-violent convicted felons here...

    Violent ass holes. Scum of the earth. Do you think they. WON'T get access to guns in the shadow of this decision?

    I'm pretty sure felons of most any stripe won't give a rat's ass one way or the other. Incidentally, this would be the exact same argument we would use against universal background checks which are also supposed to limit felon's access to firearms.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure felons of most any stripe won't give a rat's ass one way or the other. Incidentally, this would be the exact same argument we would use against universal background checks which are also supposed to limit felon's access to firearms.

    I don't think "WE" have any argument against background checks when purchasing a firearm. The core problem seems to be the Senate/Congress in Washington. These guys are 95% politicians who do not know anything . . . excepting patronizing their constitutes and getting re-elected to office. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

    I will easily say that more firearms are traded or purchased between individuals than through legitimate gun dealers. There isn't any way Capitol Hill can do anything about this. I've bought several guns from guys. But, before I did, I had the Sheriff's Department run the gun, to see if it was stolen before I clinched the deal.

    As an aside to this, a quick story: For a few months, before going to the University of Georgia Police Academy, I was a LE radio dispatcher here in Georgia. An officer made a traffic stop and for some reason found a pistol in the car he stopped. No big deal to my way of thinking. A few minutes later the officer radioed me, giving the serial number, make and model, and inquired to whom it was 'registered to.' I didn't hesitate: I said, (with a slight grin) "Officer ### guns are NOT REGISTERED in the United States." At that . . . there was just silence.

    Off subject, but I hope the current situation here will not get any worse than it is. I can hope, but I think it's just a dream.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    I don't think "WE" have any argument against background checks when purchasing a firearm. The core problem seems to be the Senate/Congress in Washington. These guys are 95% politicians who do not know anything . . . excepting patronizing their constitutes and getting re-elected to office. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

    I will easily say that more firearms are traded or purchased between individuals than through legitimate gun dealers. There isn't any way Capitol Hill can do anything about this. I've bought several guns from guys. But, before I did, I had the Sheriff's Department run the gun, to see if it was stolen before I clinched the deal.


    Many of us here have argued against background checks PERIOD, let alone having to have one when making a private purchase, which is what the 'universal' would mean. The fact that congress wouldn't be able to do anything about that' has never stopped them from trying, has it? Frankly, even a minor victory for supporters of UC is a huge loss for us, in my opinion.

    Back to the O.P., having non-violent first-time offenders able to transfer firearms to somebody of their choosing who will have to pass a background check isn't such a bad thing.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement