question about Mass law

[Doeboy2245]

I am a felon. I know that I can not own a firearm but can I still join and become a member of a Mass gun club to rent and practice with them? Thank you!

 

[massnee]

call goal www.goal.org

 

[Cross-X]

No. Any possession of a firearm is a violation of Federal law, for starters.

 

[doobie]

I would think that based on federal law, your possession of a firearm would be illegal regardless of the reason or supervision.

 

[Half Cocked]

Were you convicted? If so..NO!!

 

[massnee]

No. Any possession of a firearm is a violation of Federal law, for starters.

How can that be? I know liberal Hollywood actors who handle real firearms in the production of movies who are felons. Surely, there would not be a double standard. [sarcasm]

Would he be allowed access to black powder firearms or did that court ruling in mass a few years ago prohibit felons from possessing bp firearms in this state?

 

[vellnueve]

I think felons can have BP firearms, but not the components. Or is that unlicensed persons?

 

[KMaurer]

How can that be? I know liberal Hollywood actors who handle real firearms in the production of movies who are felons. Surely, there would not be a double standard. [sarcasm]

Would he be allowed access to black powder firearms or did that court ruling in mass a few years ago prohibit felons from possessing bp firearms in this state?

While Congress routinely denies BATFE any funds to review applications to have their rights restored, the state in which a person resides can do so. Massachusetts, obviously, isn't one of those states, but it's pretty routine in some as long as it wasn't a crime of violence or some other specified offense.

Ken

 

[jdubois]

No. Any possession of a firearm is a violation of Federal law, for starters.

Is it? If I, as a felon, build myself a firearm and keep it locked away in my safe without telling anyone, how is possession of that firearm a violation of Federal law?

 

[Scrivener]

While Congress routinely denies BATFE any funds to review applications to have their rights restored, the state in which here's the rough outline:
a person resides can do so. Massachusetts, obviously, isn't one of those states, but it's pretty routine in some as long as it wasn't a crime of violence or some other specified offense.

Actually it CAN be a crime of violence, so long as it was not a felony or domestic violence.

Per Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2005, the rough parameters are as follows:

An applicant for a firearm identification card or license to carry who has been convicted of or adjudicated a delinquent child or youthful offender by reason of an offense or offenses punishable by 2 1/2 years imprisonment or less when committed under the laws of the commonwealth which was not: (a) an assault or battery on a family member or household member, as defined by section 1 of chapter 209A, except that the determination to be made under clause (e) of said section 1 of said chapter 209A shall be made by the review board, may, after the passage of 5 years from conviction, adjudication as a youthful offender or a delinquent child or release from confinement, commitment, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever is last occurring, file a petition for review of eligibility with the firearm licensing review board

 

[Half Cocked]

Is it? If I, as a felon, build myself a firearm and keep it locked away in my safe without telling anyone, how is possession of that firearm a violation of Federal law?

A gun in your safe is still being possessed..If you mean how would anybody know about it..well that is a different story.

A convicted felon can not even hold a firearm under federal law.

 

[jdubois]

A gun in your safe is still being possessed..If you mean how would anybody know about it..well that is a different story.

A convicted felon can not even hold a firearm under federal law.

What I'm getting at is a firearm you build yourself and do not use or tell anybody about cannot possibly be considered to affect interstate or foreign commerce, and therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of federal law.

 

[Half Cocked]

What I'm getting at is a firearm you build yourself and do not use or tell anybody about cannot possibly be considered to affect interstate or foreign commerce, and therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of federal law.

It would still be under the jurisdiction of federal law. There does not have to be any "interstate" activity.

 

[jdubois]

It would still be under the jurisdiction of federal law. There does not have to be any "interstate" activity.

Perhaps you could direct me to the law you are citing?

 

[06LemansC6]

What I'm getting at is a firearm you build yourself and do not use or tell anybody about cannot possibly be considered to affect interstate or foreign commerce, and therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of federal law.

I believe the key word is possession. Doesn't matter who built it, if you are considered a convicted felon as it relates to the federal law you are committing an illegal act if you are in possession.

Now you didn't ask what the chances of getting caught in such a scenario would be. I would guess pretty slim. That being said I can't see any good that would come from breaking this law. You wouldn't be able to bring it anywhere to fire it. If you used it for self defense you would then be the one getting f***ed in court. I would say unless the law changes or you get the conviction annulled your pretty much screwed.

 

[drumenigma]

Perhaps you could direct me to the law you are citing?

(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.

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.

Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]

From the ATF website. http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b5

 

[Half Cocked]

Perhaps you could direct me to the law you are citing?

Which law are you looking for..I am confused I think.

As for jurisdiction..there is no law to cite..the Feds have jurisdiction ANYWHERE on firearms laws...drug laws...etc...

Confusion enters in when there are laws such as some property crimes that only become federal law when it extends over state lines. Such as interstate commerce of stolen goods. By statute it is only a federal crime if it goes interstate.

Federal gun laws and drug laws do not contain that statutorial element.

Federal laws are not my strong point so I will tread carefully.

 

[jdubois]

Thanks, drumenigma, but that's the FAQ, not the text of the law. 922(g) specifically says, "to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition;"

If your possession is not "in or affecting commerce", the law does not apply.

 

[06LemansC6]

Perhaps you could direct me to the law you are citing?

Felon, § 922 (g)(1) - A person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (Federal, State or military) is not allowed to knowingly possess, ship, transport or receive any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce. If convicted of this violation, the defendant may be sentenced up to 10 years in Federal prison.

a. Definition: § 921(a)(20), a felony crime does not include offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices; or a conviction which has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or full civil rights restored unless they expressly provide for no firearms possession; or is a State offense classified as a misdemeanor and punishable by imprisonment of two years or less.

b. After a felony conviction, the felon must rid himself of all firearms and ammo defined in § 921(a)(3) and § 921(a)(17) that affect interstate commerce.

c. Interstate Commerce, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution, “The Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…” In Scarborough v. U.S. (1977), the Supreme Court held that evidence that a firearm or ammunition previously crossed State lines is sufficient to prove interstate commerce.

d. Relief from Disabilities – If a felon did not have his felony conviction pardoned, expunged, etc., he may apply for Relief from disabilities with the ATF under § 925(a)(1). However, Congress has not approved funds for the ATF to conduct Relief investigations for many years.

e. Armed Career Criminal – A person who is convicted of § 922(g) and has three previous convictions for violent felonies and / or serious drug offenses, committed on different occasions, must be sentenced to not less than 15 years in Federal prison, § 924(e).

http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federalfirearmslaws.htm

 

[LoginName]

Is it? If I, as a felon, build myself a firearm and keep it locked away in my safe without telling anyone, how is possession of that firearm a violation of Federal law?

From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...

United States v. Stewart

United States of America v. Ronald Wilson Stewart, Jr. is a case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922o under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that mere possession of homemade machine guns can not be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause. Upon granting certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case back to the court for further consideration in light of its recent ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

Background

Robert W. Stewart, Jr., a convicted felon, sold parts kits to make Maadi-Griffin .50 caliber rifles, which he advertised on the Internet and in Shotgun News. A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agent discovered that Stewart had a prior conviction for possession and transfer of a machine gun (18 U.S.C. § 922o) and began an investigation. An undercover agent purchased kits and determined that it could be "readily . . . converted" into an unlawful firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(A). The ATF agent then applied for and received a federal search warrant for Stewart's residence.

During a search by the ATF of the Stewart Residence, agents discovered thirty-one firearms, including five machine guns which Stewart had machined and assembled. In United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Stewart was convicted of one count for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), and five counts for unlawful possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922o and of possessing several unregistered, home-made machine guns. On June 3, 2002, Stewart was sentenced to five years in federal prison. Stewart appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922o claiming it exceeds Congress's commerce clause power and violates the Second Amendment, and for possession of a firearm by a felon on Second Amendment grounds.

[edit] Circuit Court

On November 13, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating Stewart's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922o, but affirmed his convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Using the Morrison test, the Ninth Circuit ruled 18 U.S.C. § 922o did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce and was unconstitutional as applied. In its opinion the circuit court wrote:

* "...a homemade machine gun may be part of a gun collection or may be crafted as a hobby. Or it may be used for illegal purposes. Whatever its intended use, without some evidence that it will be sold or transferred—and there is none here—its relationship to interstate commerce is greatly attenuated."

* "...section 922(o) contains no jurisdictional element anchoring the prohibited activity to interstate commerce."

* "...there is no evidence that section 922(o) was enacted to regulate commercial aspects of the machine gun business. More likely, section 922(o) was intended to keep machine guns out of the hands of criminals—an admirable goal, but not a commercial one."

[edit] Supreme Court

After the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the United States Department of Justice then requested and received a stay while it appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Upon granting certiorari, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case back to the court for further consideration in light of its recent ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ____ (2005).

[edit] Current status

Citing the results of the Gonzales v. Raich case (June 5, 2005), the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case but rather to vacate the ruling below and remand it to court of appeals "in light of" Raich. The Ninth Circuit was thereby directed to reconsider Stewart and be guided in that reconsideration by Raich. Raich holds that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to ban homegrown marijuana; the implication of the Court's vacation is that Congress also has the power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns even though they were never involved in a commercial transaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

And

Gonzales v. Raich

So, in Stewarts case he won on the "interstate commerce" charge but lost on the possession by a convicted felon charge at the lower court level, but according to a prior SCOTUS ruling he loses on the commerce charge as well.

 

[jdubois]

Thanks 06LemansC6, that's some good info surrounding 922(g). Intersting that it says, "the Supreme Court held that evidence that a firearm or ammunition previously crossed State lines is sufficient to prove interstate commerce." But 922(g) doesn't say it has to be in intersate commerce, it says it has to "affect" interstate commerce. So I think it would be even easier to prove than having the gun move across state lines. Even simply buying a gun from a source that is involved in interstate commerce (even if that particular gun was not) would likely be enough.

LoginName, that's also some excellent information, thanks! I do however note that it is in reference to 922(o) (machine guns) which does not contain the interstate commerce wording that 922(g) (any firearms) does. So, while the ruling shows that the federal government does not need interstate commerce to enforce a law, it doesn't show it can ignore it when the wording of the specific law in question does require interstate commerce.

 

[Half Cocked]

Are we forgetting that it is not even allowed under Ma..law?

 

[jdubois]

Are we forgetting that it is not even allowed under Ma..law?

No, no, you're quite right. This is more of an academic exercise. I'm playing devil's advocate, and I'm amazed and pleased at the quality info posted so quickly by the others so far.

 

[Doeboy2245]

???

Thank you everyone for your replies, but I have one more question. My understanding about joining a Mass gun club is that a person does not need a firearms permit to join or to use the facility. A person would just pay the $XXX to join the club and become a member. Hypothetically speaking, if that that person were to have a felony how would the facility know? Does the law require the club to do a background check on all it's members? Thanks again for any help!

 

[vellnueve]

There's no law saying that a felon can't join a gun club. You just can't touch any guns. Period.

 

[drgrant]

It would still be under the jurisdiction of federal law. There does not have to be any "interstate" activity.

Yes there does, actually, in most cases, although BATFE tends to be overly liberal about exerting their authority. (just about -everything- moves in interstate commerce!) That guy that got busted at BGR, they couldn't charge him with FIP, IIRC, because the gun he was shooting was an S+W, and was made in MA, and thus, did not "travel in interstate commerce". IIRC, they did bag him on some other charge, though. (Probation violation?)

-Mike

 

[M1911]

My understanding about joining a Mass gun club is that a person does not need a firearms permit to join or to use the facility. A person would just pay the $XXX to join the club and become a member. Hypothetically speaking, if that that person were to have a felony how would the facility know? Does the law require the club to do a background check on all it's members?

Hypothetically speaking, you just don't want to go there. See an attorney about getting your rights restored.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thank you everyone for your replies, but I have one more question. My understanding about joining a Mass gun club is that a person does not need a firearms permit to join or to use the facility. A person would just pay the $XXX to join the club and become a member. Hypothetically speaking, if that that person were to have a felony how would the facility know? Does the law require the club to do a background check on all it's members? Thanks again for any help!

Although there is no law regulating gun clubs wrt possessing a firearms license, the two clubs I am a member of will NOT issue you a badge/cardkey/key unless you produce a MA LTC/FID card first. All the application forms that I have looked at require you to sign a statement that you are NOT a person for whom possession of guns is illegal. Nothing prevents you from lying, but the clubs try to "keep a clean act" to avoid trouble from LE and local governments.

If it is found out that you are a convicted felon, you will unceremoniously be ejected from any club that I am familiar with and in some cases the clubs will notify LE as well.

Not a good idea.

 

[Pilgrim]

Thank you everyone for your replies, but I have one more question. My understanding about joining a Mass gun club is that a person does not need a firearms permit to join or to use the facility. A person would just pay the $XXX to join the club and become a member.

Each club could be different. My club requires that members have a permit and are NRA members.

It's totally up to the club what the requirements are.

 

[Half Cocked]

Yes there does, actually, in most cases, although BATFE tends to be overly liberal about exerting their authority. (just about -everything- moves in interstate commerce!) That guy that got busted at BGR, they couldn't charge him with FIP, IIRC, because the gun he was shooting was an S+W, and was made in MA, and thus, did not "travel in interstate commerce". IIRC, they did bag him on some other charge, though. (Probation violation?)

-Mike

There does not have to be any interstate transportation for felon in possession.