Felon wins the right to own a gun - NC

[Viking Kitten]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1670142.html

RALEIGH -- A state law barring felons from owning firearms unfairly prevented a Garner man from owning guns, the N.C. Supreme Court ruled Friday, thrusting the court into the national debate over gun ownership.

The opinion applied only to Barney Britt, who was convicted of a drug crime in 1979, and it didn't have an immediate effect on the thousands of other felons in the state. Criminal defense lawyers who practice in federal courts said they don't know what effect, if any, the opinion will have on federal rules, which prevent felons from buying and owning weapons except when a state has restored that right.

The ruling authored by Justice Edward Thomas Brady held that Britt should be able to own guns and that the state unfairly took away his right to own a firearm with a 2004 law that barred felons from owning firearms. Britt was convicted in 1979 of selling Quaalude pills, but he didn't have any further tangles with the law.

Though the opinion focused just on Britt's case, both sides of the gun control issue saw the ruling as significant because the state's highest court found that Britt had a right to bear arms that trumped the state's ability to restrict him from owning any weapons.

Advocates spent Monday poring over the 5-2 decision in Britt v. State of North Carolina. The decision was seen as a victory for those who view government restrictions as too strict, while those in favor of tighter gun control described it as an alarming blow.

[portions deleted]

The state legislature may address the issue with a bill introduced for the 2009-2010 session by Rep. Phil Haire, a Democrat from Western North Carolina, that would give limited hunting privileges to nonviolent felons.

A passionate hunter who never had any subsequent arrests, Britt had his right to own guns restored from 1987 until 2004, when the new law went into effect.

Brady wrote that the law was too broad in including nonviolent felons like Britt, who had otherwise been law-abiding and had owned guns for 17 years after he successfully petitioned in 1987 to have his civil rights restored, including owning a gun.

"He is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety," Brady wrote.



I did a search and didn't find it so I hope this isn't a dupe!

 

[Martlet]

Finally. Hopefully we can continue the drive against bad laws.

 

[packingungal]

Well, that is interesting - will certainly lay foundation for future situations.

 

[KMaurer]

This ruling really doesn't open any new possibilities. At the time that the appellant was convicted, NC law allowed non-violent felons to possess firearms 5 years after the completion of their sentence. The appellant completed his sentence years ago and had possessed firearms legally for some time. A change in the law eliminated that restoration of rights, and the gun owner attempted to comply with the law by asking whether it applied in his case. When he was told that it did, he transferred all his guns to another person and got an attorney. The lower courts held that he was prohibited, but the state supreme court held that the new law violated the state constitution in cases such as his, where there was violence or other finding that the individual posed a danger. Anyone convicted since the law changed, and some convicts under the old law would still be disqualified.

Ken

 

[pdm]

Don't worry, the folks in DC will find a way to make you a federally prohibited person with no way to restore your rights.

 

[Plural of Mongoose]

On a local level. I know of an individual who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and served almost two years in state prison during the eighties.
He somehow had an LTC of some sort for years but last Spring when he renewed he was denied.
He appealed and was given a new LTC a few months ago.

Is this a normal occurrence in Mass?

 

[Business]

I'd say its fine he's grandfathered in. I don't like it but he has been a good boy since then. I am sure the cops will look for any opportunity to pull it from him.

 

[Bill Nance]

It won't help him with the feds though will it? I thought felon in possession was a federal law and it didn't matter what state laws were? Anyone know for sure?

 

[pdm]

It won't help him with the feds though will it? I thought felon in possession was a federal law and it didn't matter what state laws were? Anyone know for sure?

If the burden is a state conviction and the state unburdens your gun rights, you're no longer a federally prohibited person. If your conviction is on a federal level, you're totally boned, because the ATF doesn't process relief requests any more.

 

[weekendracer]

Since everyone always wants references, how about the ATF site?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b5

(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]


Yes, a person who –

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.




I've used #5 a couple of times.

 

[drgrant]

It won't help him with the feds though will it? I thought felon in possession was a federal law and it didn't matter what state laws were? Anyone know for sure?

If the state considers his conviction "null" for gun ownership (or they issue him an expungement) then he can get his rights back.

Now, as PDM states, if this was a federal felony conviction he would be completely and utterly screwed.

Food for fun thought- BATFE has a "relief from disabilities" program for
explosives but not for firearms. So felons can regain their ability to buy/use explosives, but not guns.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

On a local level. I know of an individual who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and served almost two years in state prison during the eighties.
He somehow had an LTC of some sort for years but last Spring when he renewed he was denied.
He appealed and was given a new LTC a few months ago.

Is this a normal occurrence in Mass?

It was pre-mircs because all LTCs were pretty much 110% locally issued- and sometimes PDs either didn't do enough checks or whatever and they slipped through the cracks. Years ago computers were not as prevalent either, which made it a lot more likely for someone to survive a cursory background check.

As far as "vehicular manslaughter guy" goes, all depends on the sentence and the conviction, etc. If he served over a year theoretically that's a DQ right out of the gate, but it's possible due to nuances in state and federal law that he's slipped under the wire.

As far as I'm concerned this notional of "prohibited persons" should not exist. It creates a burden of compliance everyone else has to bear. People who cannot vote and can't own guns are not free anyways. Lock em up or kill em if they're that dangerous. I'm sick of paying the costs of the actions of 1-2% of the population, in the form of having to comply with a bunch of silly feel good gun laws which do absolutely nothing to deter real crime. We don't need a background check to retain 1st or 4th, 5th amendment rights, why should the 2nd be any different?

-Mike