Interesting Article - No background check needed to fire gun on range

[THUNDERCHIEF]

Milwakee Wisconsin

Its interessting that the gun shop in this article is "the top sellers of crime guns recovered by Milwaukee police for at least the past decade"

AND

"Officers have continued to stop felons leaving the store in recent weeks."

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/93866189.html

Also, I did not know that a felon cannot even handle a gun on private property. I mean, I knew they cant own anything or carry in public but I figured that shooting your buddies gun at a private range would be fine (I know that wasnt the case in the article either). Glad I know this now....is it true in Mass? The article suggests its a federal law.

/John

 

[joehaus]

Yup a felon can not touch a firearm.

 

[Kevlar]

I did not know that a felon cannot even handle a gun on private property. I mean, I knew they cant own anything or carry in public but I figured that shooting your buddies gun at a private range would be fine (I know that wasnt the case in the article either). Glad I know this now....is it true in Mass? The article suggests its a federal law.

Yup, it's Federal law. (18 U.S.C. 922(g))

 

[wolf223]

A man who went to Shooters Sports Center in Caledonia in March 2009 asked to rent a gun and to buy a single bullet, according to the medical examiner's report.

The owner said he only sold ammunition by the box, and the man bought a box. He fired several rounds with an employee at his side. After the employee left, the man turned the gun on himself, the report said.

CPT Obvious' missed that one...


-more reason i avoid public shooting ranges

 

[drgrant]

Felons cannot touch guns and ammunition legally in 99% of the cases.

The only exception to this is when the conditionals for fulfilling the commerce clause fail, which is almost never. (He'd have to be renting a gun made in that same state, that didn't move via interstate commerce, and using ammunition that was made there as well. ) This also assumes, of course, that a given state law doesn't have its own laws against felons in possession. Most states (I want to say nearly all, except for like VT and maybe one or two other ones) have state laws against felons in possession.

For those doubting me, I recall an ex con who got hit by the feds when he went shooting at BGR in Worcester when it was still open. The feds got him on ammo possession (and possibly some other charge I can't remember at the moment) but they had to drop the gun possession charge because the gun he rented was an S+W.

-Mike

 

[Boghog1]

looks like the Journal Sentinal has a thing for guns
http://www.jsonline.com/news/94182249.html

 

[strangenh]

"The fact that they don't check everyone who comes in and handles a gun in no way will stop us from prosecuting a felon or any other prohibited person," said Assistant U.S. Attorney John Manning. "The U.S. code tells us felons can't possess guns. The law is written by Congress, and that is the law we will enforce."

In the case of Badger Guns, West Milwaukee police and prosecutors say they are getting cooperation to make cases against felons using the range or trying to buy guns.

That should have been the whole article right there. The rest is anti-gun FUD.

 

[drgrant]

Another thing people should be aware of with felons/prohibited persons.... even in free states, these people can be put in jeopardy for arrest by virtue of simply having unrestricted indirect access to firearms. Say you live in NH or some other free state, and you keep a loaded gun in your unlocked junk drawer. Your third cousin twice removed who was bagged 20 years ago on a possession with intent charge, who is a PP, comes over to visit your family for a few weeks. While he is in your house, he technically constructively possesses that firearm, and can be subject to arrest and prosecution. Of course, it requires a huge circus of fail to get to this point, but BATFE has
gone after people for this before.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The only exception to this is when the conditionals for fulfilling the commerce clause fail

The other exception (at the federal, but not MA level) is when the felony involves violation of anti-trust or restraint of trade laws.

 

[drgrant]

The other exception (at the federal, but not MA level) is when the felony involves violation of anti-trust or restraint of trade laws.

Yes, but that person is technically NOT a federally prohibited person, correct?

-Mike

 

[strangenh]

[...]but they had to drop the gun possession charge because the gun he rented was an S+W.

That may have just been their reluctance to push through with it, depending on how long ago it was. Now, after Gonzales v. Raich, I think that argument/defense may be (constitutionally) very weak indeed. Raich represented the greatest expansion of Commerce Clause power in decades.

 

[economist]

Governments love victimless crimes because enforcement requires vast government power, invasion of privacy, denial of basic property rights, and as a bonus it's very easy to frame someone for mere possession of a prohibited item. Denying felons -- who are not in prison -- firearms rights just ends up with all of us being treated like criminals.

 

[center442]

Governments love victimless crimes because enforcement requires vast government power, invasion of privacy, denial of basic property rights, and as a bonus it's very easy to frame someone for mere possession of a prohibited item. Denying felons -- who are not in prison -- firearms rights just ends up with all of us being treated like criminals.

Yes. As is said here often, it also doesn't stop the felon on the street from illegally obtaining the tools of his trade. All it does is hassle people who normally try to comply with the laws.

Of course, it also gives our legislators and their supporters the warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction that they're doing something about crime. The fact that they're doing the wrong thing never seems to occur to them. The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes, but that person is technically NOT a federally prohibited person, correct?

Correct. My point is that the claim "All felons are prohibited persons" is only about 99% true.