Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
N320AW
Senior MemberPosts: 648 Senior Member
SUPREME COURT 5-18-15: Felons May Sell Or Transfer Owned Guns To Another.
N320AW
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:
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
Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA, Pietta 1860 .44 snubnose
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.
Hey, SCOTUS does a lot right. You still have your firearms. DC v. Heller to name one.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
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.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
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.
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"
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
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.
― Douglas Adams
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.
― Douglas Adams
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.
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.
George Carlin
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?
George Carlin
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.
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.
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.
I'll bet he did lose them. A stranger committing simple battery would not come under domestic violence anyway.
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.
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.
Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA, Pietta 1860 .44 snubnose
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.
George Carlin
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.
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.
George Carlin