Felons in Kentucky

[DMF]

I've never heard of a single case where someone was arrested just for being in violation of the fed PP statute; that statute is always invoked as an add-on after a person violates some state law.

I can guarantee that is not true. I have direct personal experience with several cases where the offender was investigated for, arrested for, and successfully prosecuted for violating 18USC922(g)(1), and there was never any consideration given to whether or not there was a violation of state law. In fact I've worked in states where there was no prohibition on the possession of ammunition by a felon under state law, and offenders were arrested/prosecuted under 18USC922(g)(1) for possessing ammunition, but not a firearm.

It is foolish/reckless to suggest that someone would not be arrested/prosecuted for violating 18USC922(g)(1) unless they were also violating state law, as that is simply not true.

 

[alsaqr]

In fact I've worked in states where there was no prohibition on the possession of ammunition by a felon under state law, and offenders were arrested/prosecuted under 18USC922(g)(1) for possessing ammunition, but not a firearm.

Spot on. This is a pretty common federal charge. I personally could care less what happens to a convicted felon who is found to be in possession of a gun or ammo.


http://www.al.com/news/press-register/metro.ssf?/base/news/1231409727268910.xml&coll=3

Smith was arrested on the heels of a December federal grand jury indictment charging him with illegal possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. The indictment alleges that Smith had ammunition Nov. 21. Federal law bars a convicted felon from having a firearm or ammunition.

 

[Travis Bickle]

In fact I've worked in states where there was no prohibition on the possession of ammunition by a felon under state law, and offenders were arrested/prosecuted under 18USC922(g)(1) for possessing ammunition, but not a firearm.

That's probably because they were on parole or something. Besides, what were they originally nabbed for? I'm guessing it wasn't possession of ammunition, but some state-level offense.

Spot on. This is a pretty common federal charge. I personally could care less what happens to a convicted felon who is found to be in possession of a gun or ammo.


http://www.al.com/news/press-registe...910.xml&coll=3

It sounds to me from that article that he originally got entangled with the authorities for other stuff.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Sheesh---so much for paying your debt to society and getting a second chance.

If they served their time and run the straight and narrow for 5 years--I'd be all for restoration of rights-----if they wind back up in prison, then it doesn't really matter then does it.

With attitudes like some of you have--they would never even get the OPPORTUNITY to prove themselves rehabilitated.

 

[charliewood]

A felon is a legal label that doesn't necessarily reflect the character of the individual as much as being a non felon would indicate a person to be of good character. Granted that people often will continue along the same "path",but it's not a "given" that they will and each case is different.
I would think those of us that carry should be more understanding of how easy it could be to end up a felon.one "bad" shooting, or one concidered "bad" by twelve people that WANTED jury duty ,could earn you that title FOR LIFE . imho if someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm they need to be locked up still.
even felons have a god given right to be able to defend themselves and there families.i feel that a properly operating legal system would keep the DANGEROUS people locked up forever and would bring more fairness to the rest.

 

[ilbob]

If it is a federal crime he was convicted of, AFAIK, the only route available to him is a presidential pardon.

If it is a state crime, he can either get a full pardon, or IF its is available as an option, he can get it expunged. Expungement is not always available. In most states only certain crimes can be expunged, although from what I understand, the limitations on what crimes can be expunged are often fudged by sympathetic judges in Illinois.

 

[armoredman]

DMF, good luck on that presidential pardon.

 

[cjw3cma]

Your all wrong! Read the 2nd Amendment - it says nothing about not letting a felony have a gun. They should be issued one when convicted, so as not to trample on their Constitutional rights. Right?

 

[KBintheSLC]

70 percent of all felons will offend again.

Sounds like he's on work release/halfway house. A felon will say and do anything to get back out on the streets one way or another. I'd never trust the word of a known felon. -jaholder1971

Easy there turbo...

There is a whole slew of frivolous felonies out there, from having an unlicensed firearm in NY, to smoking a joint in NV, to driving through a school zone with a gun in your trunk without a CCW permit.

With more and more laws hitting the books every day, you could be next. Heck, I bet a lot of folks commit felony's without even knowing it. So, please try to tone down your wrathful judgments. You sound like you are on a witch hunt.


...

 

[carebear]

Given that when most "felon in possession" laws were created "felon" and "violent felon" were in practice synonymous, and that since then a whole raft of victimless and utterly non-violent crimes have had their penalties increased to felony status by legislatures seeking to appear "tough on crime" without actually doing anything about the real problems, I would say the time has come for a reexamination of blanket "felon in possession" laws.

If a person didn't commit a crime of violence, there is no reason to believe, based simply on that offense, that they will commit a violent crime in the future.

Since the stated aim of preventing convicted felons from lawfully having firearms is to eliminate (Prohibition always works ) them from having the tools to reoffend, such prohibition has no relevence to non-violent or victimless crimes.

There's no rational basis for preventing persons convicted solely of non-violent or victimless crimes from having their right to possess firearms automatically returned at the completion of their full sentence.

 

[ar10]

Maybe this will answer the OP question, (but probably not)

Felony Convictions

If you have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, i.e., a felony, you are not only ineligible to possess a CCDW license; federal law prohibits you from possessing a firearm. Individuals subject to this disability should immediately lawfully dispose of their firearms and ammunition. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recommends that individuals who have been convicted of a felony surrender their firearms and ammunition to a third party, such as their attorney, local police agency, or a federal firearms dealer. The continued possession of firearms or ammunition by persons under this disability is a violation of federal law and may subject the possessor to criminal penalties as well as seizure and forfeiture of the firearms and ammunition.

http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/conceal.htm

 

[alsaqr]

A felon is a legal label that doesn't necessarily reflect the character of the individual as much as being a non felon would indicate a person to be of good character.

Suggest that you work as a corrections officer for a year or two and find out that 75 percent of those inmates are total scumbags.

 

[SHvar]

Recidivism rates vary across the country, it averages 70%, it varies from location to location from 64% to 77%. Its all about the choices you make in life.
I know that 70% commit new felonies and are convicted over and over again (not just once), a few never commit felonies again, among the rest, some are killed before they can be convicted, arrested, in the process of being arrested, or killed by other criminals on the street. Some even become worse criminals than they were before.
Its sad that most cannot just change their bad habits and go straight. When you deal with these people, person to person you see why they are in the situation and why the public wants them off the streets.
Some of us have never committed a felony, and never will. So for those of us who live law abiding lives dont group us in with criminals, Im proud of being one of the good guys.
By the way, to restore firearm ownership again takes a non-violent offender to finish their sentence and go straight for 10 years, then to petition the judge that convicted them (or their replacement) and a panel of judges must agree 100% to restore the right. I dont think anyone has had that happen yet. Or to have a pardon handed to you by the president or the governor of the state that convicted you of the state felony.

 

[Tim the student]

Suggest that you work as a corrections officer for a year or two and find out that 75 percent of those inmates are total scumbags.

Sure, I'll buy that.

But I'll also believe that this is true:

A felon is a legal label that doesn't necessarily reflect the character of the individual as much as being a non felon would indicate a person to be of good character.

I'm sure we can think of a good amount of felons we believe to be good people (or at least not a total dirtbag), and boatloads more non-felons to be the slime of the earth.

 

[DMF]

That's probably because they were on parole or something. Besides, what were they originally nabbed for? I'm guessing it wasn't possession of ammunition, but some state-level offense.

Silly me, I should have known that you would know more about the cases that my team has actually worked than I do!

What part of, "I have direct personal experience with several cases . . ." did you not understand?

I guess the next time I discuss my real world experience on a particular subject I should check to see if it meets your preconceived ideas that have no basis in the real world.

Let me be clear. I was talking about cases initiated by federal agents, in which the felon was proven to be in possession of firearms and/or ammunition, and in which there was never any intention of prosecuting the person for any state violation. That includes the ammunition only cases which is why I just said "and/or."

Let me also repeat:
It is foolish/reckless to suggest that someone would not be arrested/prosecuted for violating 18USC922(g)(1) unless they were also violating state law, as that is simply not true.

 

[DMF]

Given that when most "felon in possession" laws were created "felon" and "violent felon" were in practice synonymous . . .

This statement also has no basis in reality. A whole host of property crimes, that are "non violent" have been considered felonies long before many of the laws prohibiting possession of a firearms by felons. Hell, early on the history of this nation in many areas a horse or cattle thief might be subjected to capital punishment, despite the non-violent nature of the crime. Certainly by the time Congress put 18USC922(g)(1) into law in 1968 it was well established that serious, albeit non violent crimes, were felonies.

As to the comment about "victimless" crimes, that is utter nonsense. There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.

Further, to claim that non-violent offenders convicted of a felony should not be prohibited from possessing firearms has no relevance to preventing violent crime I would disagree. As I've said before on this forum:
When someone commits a serious crime they are showing a reckless disregard for society, and the safety of others. I'm not buying the "non-violent" felonies argument. If you commit a serious enough offense to be a felony, then you must suffer the consequences.

 

[Travis Bickle]

Let me be clear. I was talking about cases initiated by federal agents, in which the felon was proven to be in possession of firearms and/or ammunition, and in which there was never any intention of prosecuting the person for any state violation.

Please expatiate on this a little more. I have a very hard time believing that these people did nothing to merit some sort of special attention.

The feds generally have little interest in sending federal agents after Cletus and his fudd gun in Podunk, Kentucky. If a state prosecutor makes a referral the the US prosecutor after he has Cletus locked up for something else, they'll happily take the case, though.

Just for your information, I have a little experience with this, too. I happen to know someone who is prohibited by federal but not state law. The cops have run his name twice while he was in possession of a gun, and he was never arrested. State and local cops around here do not give a sh*t about 18 U.S.C. 922(g). They go by ARS 13-3101.

 

[Travis Bickle]

As to the comment about "victimless" crimes, that is utter nonsense. There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.

Smoking marijuana in the privacy of one's home is victimless. It is also a crime. It is a victimless crime.

 

[jaholder1971]

Easy there turbo...

There is a whole slew of frivolous felonies out there, from having an unlicensed firearm in NY, to smoking a joint in NV, to driving through a school zone with a gun in your trunk without a CCW permit.

So the question remains: Are your freedoms and rights worth risking over a joint in NV, or too many sex toys in Texas, etc.?

With more and more laws hitting the books every day, you could be next. Heck, I bet a lot of folks commit felony's without even knowing it. So, please try to tone down your wrathful judgments. You sound like you are on a witch hunt.

While I agree that there are too many laws and too many felony statutes in most states, it doesn't change my assertion I made above: Is that questionable decision worth possibly losing your rights? Civil Death goes back long before the GCA of 68 when felons lost RKBA and even that's over 40 years old now. It isn't like people don't know a felony rap deep sixes RKBA.

Most everyone who commits a felony knows exactly what they're doing. They've simply made a very poor decision one way or another and ended up on the wrong end of the "risk vs. reward" equation.

 

[rainbowbob]

There's no rational basis for preventing persons convicted solely of non-violent or victimless crimes from having their right to possess firearms automatically returned at the completion of their full sentence.

Yes.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Inalienable right.

If you can't trust someone with a firearm, the sentence should have been longer -- because no law will prevent a bad person from owning a gun.

Amazing how many in this thread support back door gun control. Remember, it was a very small leap from felon to lautenberg.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Recidivism rates vary across the country, it averages 70%, it varies from location to location from 64% to 77%. Its all about the choices you make in life.

Such stats are BS. When you disenfranchise someone, don't be surprised if they get worse and not better.

You've assured they are NOT a part of society, that they will never again be a part of society. Little wonder if they re-offend.

 

[alsaqr]

You've assured they are NOT a part of society, that they will never again be a part of society. Little wonder if they re-offend.

Yep, fine upstanding citizens like these guys are just having their lives trashed by a heartless and uncaring justice system:

http://docapp8.doc.state.ok.us/serv...By=Basic&undefined=ALL&SearchAW=ALL&zip=73501

 

[SHvar]

No, they separate themselves from society by going out of their way to break laws, steal from the rest of us, sell drugs, kill others, etc. I dont do anything to separate them from society, they do it to themselves.
They are so used to being criminals that they decide its easier to just be a criminal and do illegal activities rather than just follow the laws, be honest and work hard for what they want in life, like the rest of us do everyday.
They are not permitted firearm ownership simply because they prove the fact that they commit a felony, then gain access to fireams, then try to commit bigger and worse crimes the next time by their own choice.
If they were so upset about being separated from society they would leave the country or kill themselves, not commit more crimes.
Yes, recidivism, 70% everywhere on average, firsthand fact.

By the way for the respondant above about smoking marijane being a victimless crime, what about all of those other law abiding citizens along the way that are effected by the growing, sale, transportation, missed taxes, distribuition, and other crimes connected with the use of marijane, how are they not victims.
Of course like the old add said "when you smoke it, you dont do anything", also you dont learn anything.

 

[dave_pro2a]

America got along just fine with felons owning guns from 1776 to 1968.

That's 192 years of freedom and things working fine. Then suddenly the pansy a*@, liberal, nanny state decided it was crucial to deny them their inalienable rights. []Yes, makes perfect sense [/sarcasm]

I think I'll go with America's historical norm, and err on the side of freedom.