Question on Firearms Law

A few of us were sittin’ around the campfire the other night when the question came up “If a person can’t legally buy a gun, can that same person legally have a gun in their possession and shoot it?” I’m interested in hearing opinions.

 

They can as long as they aren’t felons. Some misdemeanor crimes won’t allow person to pass the Nics background check. The person can buy from an individual and possess the firearm.

 

If an individual cannot legally purchase a firearm then that individual can not legally have a firearm in their possession.

 

And on a side note anyone who furnishes a firearm to an individual who cannot legally own one could be charged with a felony.

 

Do all states follow the same laws? .....Don't some state laws go above and beyond federal laws?

 

Smokintom explain how Amish buy firearms. They can’t legally purchase at a gunshop because they don’t posses a photo ID. Amish own firearms and buy from individuals.

 

In NJ, it appears there are circumstances which invalidate your assertion.

 

Amish as stated do not have photo ID's but that is NOT a reason to forbid them to purchase firearms

 

They can’t purchase firearms from an FFL but they can still own them. As long as they can legally possess them. I’ve seen them purchase them at gun shows many a time

 

Wouldn’t know. I don’t live in NJ or California or any other anti gun state.
And as far as circumstances go we’re listening

 

Depending on any applicable state laws and the circumstances, yes. For example, kids can't legally buy firearms, but are allowed to possess and shoot them in most states. Another example would be someone who is visiting a different state; they can possess and shoot a firearm, but they can't purchase and receive a handgun while out of state.

 

Since the NICS background check is a Federal law, anyone in possession of a firearm must be able to pass the test on the 4473. That includes the Domestic violence misdemeanor.
In the case of the Amish, they still must be in compliance or they are breaking Federal law.
Personally I believe the NICS check violates the 10th Amendment. But I know of no State or Commonwealth that over rides it.

 

From the NJ Firearms Laws:

An heir can possess an inherited firearm without obtaining a Firearms Purchase Permit, provided he/she can meet all the requirements to pass a NICS check. (NJ 13:54-1.13 )

Section 13:54-1.3 states a Firearms Identification Card (F.I.D.) or Purchase Permit is required to acquire or buy a long gun. ...Handguns require a handgun permit. ...This section does not address possession.

This makes me believe that an heir who does not have a F.I.D. (but would be eligible to get one) can possess and shoot a legal rifle or legal shotgun, but cannot legally buy a rifle or shotgun because he/she does not possess a F.I.D. ....In NJ, you must be 18 years old to be eligible to get an F.I.D.

In NJ, sales from an individual to another individual must go through an FFL.

Handguns seem to have their own rules, as well as other specific regulated weapons.

 

Too many variables. Jurisdictional and other issues . You might go to jail. You might not. Even people that have committed no crime might not be able to possess. And if one person in a car or house or structure cannot posses, there is a good chance that generally guns may not present .

 

ATF has decided an individual in a household can legally possess a firearm provided his firearm is locked away from the individual who is legally unable to possess. That's a fact directly from my interaction with the ATF in PA which they consider a gray area.

 

it really is only one jurisdiction, the ATF and not even a court case. States and local governments or another part of the Federal Govt may come to a different conclusion

BUT practically what you point to is nearly impossible. Open the safe with person in the house and you have a problem if the person is in the house. If the other person ( think spouse) has access to the combination you have a problem

Come in from hunting, and set your gun down ( even in a case ) and you have a problem

 

My ruling came directly from the ATF headquarters in PA-it was not based on what-ifs. It was described as a "gray area" that required firearms kept under lock and key of which the other individual's conviction eliminated his/hers ability to own a firearm. Try knowing the law by contacting your local ATF district headquarters, as I have, and ask for their opinion-not yours!

 

You are dead wrong. What the ATF , IRS. Etc tell you is an opinion, not the law, even if they put it in writing. That is assuming you understand them which you obviously don’t. The other jurisdictions are all independent as are Federal agencies .

I have actually argued these issues in courts.

Quit giving people legal advice which clearly subject them to prison terms.

If you had read my previous post and had even a basic understanding of control you would have understood those exceptions I mention break control even if whatever the person told you was law, which it wasn’t.

Gene

 

So, Gene believes everyone associated with an individual who is unable to own a firearm also gives up their 2nd Amendment right to also own and possess a firearm. There must be something in the water in his state and the local ATF office to make such a determination. As I stated, my ruling came directly from the ATF field office and I would choose another attorney more familiar with case law than this one. I will add that I doubt any ATF agency would put in writing any decision made by individuals in their office as many of the employees do not fully comprehend all issues as presented. Nonethless, the loss of 2nd Amendment rights does not extend to others not convicted of a crime as long as reasonable measures are employed to deny firearm access to a criminal.

 

I see you keep changing your story. You now added reasonable to your statement and you pathetically try to tie this to someone’s second amendment rights

The ATF does not make any ruling ahead of time and any advice is not binding and they will tell you cannot be relied on.

i don’t see your confusion.

Now I might tend to agree you could have firearm in a safe that cannot be accessed by a barred individual. Simply they don’t know the combination and the safe is locked at all times when they are in the premises .

I would certainly tell you that despite your gross confusion about policy and laws that at no time could you have an unsecured firearm laying around or maybe even ammunition

There is a recent case where a parole officer found a single 22 shell stuck with only the back of the case showing between a gap in a floorboard under some furniture. This was enough to result in a conviction. Because this occurred in a three strike state jurisdiction, that random 22 cartridge that was likely there for years was enough to trigger the three strikes for life law

So keep giving people legal advice

 

You don't have to agree with me to know my original argument was that an individual does not forfeit his 2nd Amendment rights and is able to possess a firearm even though he/she may be living with a convicted felon. As long as the convict does not have access to the firearm and it is kept under lock and key then the owner may own that firearm. We're not talking about unsecured firearms, ammunition or a convicted felon in possession of a bullet so why interject those possibilities into the original discussion? BTW, my home and business is filled with unsecured firearms and PA has no restrictions as we are not yet a Commie state. Yes, some of 'em are loaded and ready-ya can't be too careful ya know!

 

You have changed your story to mimic mine. Amazing. You should work for Biden

Quit giving legal advice . You know no one important at the ATF

Best regards from the great state of Iowa

Gene

 

Who's full of it?

 

I stand by that. Remember I stated states and localities can have other requirements

The other variables are the control I mentioned several times

So are you hanging your hat on Harris if Biden drops out ? Flip Flop

 

"Safe storage" laws are state and local laws and not ATF edicts. Try again!

 

Michigan now requires back ground checks for all firearms sold privately.

 

One of my local Army and Navy stores specializes in clothing. It also sells firearms and ammunition. Considering the area where it is located I'd say more than several customers are likely convicted felons. So, some might say those convicts are in violation of some law that negates their opportunity to shop for clothing. Poor Cabelas.

 

Different states and different laws. Some state allow your friends, mother borrows and even allowed to you them if the need ever arise.

 

You have no clue. …. What are you talking about ? You are going to hand a felon your gun , that you may or may not legally be able to carry into a store, when you try on underwear ? Seems to be something wrong with your brain housing group

Stop giving legal advice. Go back to using your intellectual capabilities to support Biden

 

Yes. And there are many more categories of unqualified persons besides felons

 

You are repeating what I said ..you have flip flopped

Quit giving legal advice

You know no one of importance in the ATF

 

When's the last time Cabelas asked an individual if he was a felon before handing him a gun to look at?

 

Sure are. PFA's orders qualify as persons unable to own or possess firearms. Doesn't mean his/her partner forfeits their right to own firearms. As a dealer who handles hundreds of confiscated weapons from PFA's at our county sheriff's office I might know a bit about the law. BTW, we're talking federal law-not some wild speculation.

 

You have no clue and are trying to mislead readers here

No one except you is banging that tin pan claiming their gun rights are violated

lots of regulations and laws limit where you can exercise different levels of firearms possession

Try walking into an airport in Nj and spend 5 years in prison

Try walking into your local school

Try walking into a judges chambers

Gene

on and on.

You know no one in the ATF of consequence and you have no understanding of law

 

Off on tangents much?

 

If you are repeating what I said then it was you who flip-flopped.

 

I think he has gotcha there Gene, lol.

Now it is your turn to tell him he is repeating what you said and therefore he flip-flopped.

 

Just another amateur dealing with a Virtuoso.

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

“Can A Felon Get Their Gun Rights Back in Ohio?
Thankfully, the state of Ohio does provide options for felons so they can have their firearm possession rights restored. One option is to expunge your record of the felony and therefore have your gun rights restored automatically once that processed has finished.“

Another question might be if a person had their record expunged and MANY years later someone publicly states they are a felon and ineligible to own a firearm, is that an actionable violation of the persons rights? I think we might find out that answer very soon!

 

My question would be what if they only had their felony record sealed rather than expunged? Records of sealed felonies are still available to the feds. What if they were shooting firearms prior to the expungement or sealing?

 

Oh, I love where you are headed with this HCarl! If I understand you correctly, hypothetically, a member of law enforcement gains access to sealed court records under the pretense of one of the legal reasons to do so. They then either pass along the sealed court records to others or make them public themselves. Is that the hypothetical scenario you are describing?

 

I see. In this hypothetical situation, I certainly hope the proof they are relying on isn’t ATA shoot records. God knows there has been more than one time shooters have used another’s ATA card to shoot at shorter yardages. Heck, some morons actually let themselves be photographed after winning with someone else’s card.

 

The question is certainly a hypothetical situation involving a hypothetical person so I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that ATA records would be involved. That being said, however, what if there were video evidence involved?

 

After reading this exchange, I'm not wondering who the law expert is, rather who is the person I'd rather NOT have a beer with.
...and it ain't the Dawg.

 

I drink alone-with nobody else- and often.

 

Dawg, I know my post could be confusing, but you are the person I would have a beer with.

 

I'm not as dumb as I act. After a few beers I figured it out.

 

Federal law is very clear and turns on the words "Prohibited Person". Prohibited Persons cannot possess firearms or ammunition. The law lays out exactly who a Prohibited Person is. Being Amish is not on the list but that pesky little Form 4473 will prevent prohibited persons (and folks who do not possess valid IDs) from purchasing firearms unless the local officials have neglected to turn in the information (such as being convicted of domestic abuse). Obviously private sales are open to abuse as well as straw purchases, theft, etc.

PS - As a slight aside, if you view the Pennsylvania State Sportsmen's Association web site, they have a written policy regarding Prohibited Persons.