You're charged with a class B felony. What do you do with your guns?

[rutilate]

Assume that you've been arrested, charged with a class B felony, and released on bail. Obviously there is a fair amount of time between the time that you're charged and you actually go to trial. At what point do you start ditching the guns? Now? Or upon conviction?

Would it make any difference if the evidence against you was damning?

No, it is not me.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

From form 4473:
Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?

You are technically a prohibited person until you clear it up. If you are a MA resident, expect a visit from the PD to collect your stuff. If you are smart, you transfer it out of your name before that happens. Not turning it over is a whole nother felony in MA.

 

[rutilate]

Yep. That's the answer right there. It isn't just convicted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PATRON]

Buy your friend a soap on a rope,

 

[Kevlar]

Assume that you've been arrested, charged with a class B felony, and released on bail. Obviously there is a fair amount of time between the time that you're charged and you actually go to trial. At what point do you start ditching the guns? Now? Or upon conviction?

Would it make any difference if the evidence against you was damning?

No, it is not me.

Assuming the individual is in WA state (based on your profile location), and depending on the charge, they may already be prohibited from owning, possessing, or having in his or her control any firearm, pursuant to RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(v)

You are technically a prohibited person until you clear it up. If you are a MA resident, expect a visit from the PD to collect your stuff. If you are smart, you transfer it out of your name before that happens. Not turning it over is a whole nother felony in MA.

No, Federal law prohibits the acquisition (and interstate shipping and transport) of firearms while under information or indictment, not possession...

(n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(v)[/URL] No, Federal law prohibits the acquisition (and interstate shipping and transport) of firearms while under information or indictment, not possession...

Just reread that. It is under the PP section, but as you say, does not include posession.

 

[TayNinh_66]

Shouldn't he be asking his atty these questions?
Internet opinions on WA regulations are probably worth what you are paying for them.

 

[rutilate]

Assuming the individual is in WA state (based on your profile location), and depending on the charge, they may already be prohibited from owning, possessing, or having in his or her control any firearm, pursuant to RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(v)

I think you're right.

- - - Updated - - -

Shouldn't he be asking his atty these questions?
Internet opinions on WA regulations are probably worth what you are paying for them.

I certainly hope he has his own attorney. I'm not mounting a defense, not to worry.

 

[dhuze]

He knows if he's guilty or not. If he's guilty he should sell them off now before they just take them.

 

[Hoover]

If the person did it, try to get a deal down to a misdemeanor that won't make him a PP. Also, it looks like WA state has an expungment option down the line if the conviction/guilty plea is for a non violent crime.

 

[Hoover]

He knows if he's guilty or not. If he's guilty he should sell them off now before they just take them.

Even if he's found guilty, if the guns were not part of the crime, he'll be able to sell or transfer them after a plea or conviction. There was a SCOTUS case last term, I think 'Henderson' where a former Fed agent was convicted of selling pot (big amounts) and the Feds would not allow him to transfer the guns because they said it would be possession and illegal. I think the SCOTUS decision was 9-0 that the fed's were idiots and ownership did not equate possession under the statutes. Even though convicted, he still owned the guns and could transfer them to his wife.

If I remember correctly, the one issue with the Henderson decision is because he's now a PP the whole transfer process needed to be done with court involvement to make sure who he was transferring the guns to would not allow Henderson access to them. Henderson had some nice collector type Garands, etc. with good value.

 

[rutilate]

Great insights all. The interesting thing is that the gun registry has only just started last year so LEOs won't have any idea what he has if he hasn't purchased anything in the past year.

Hoover, great reference to the transfer case.

This particular case is sufficiently distasteful so I would wonder if it could be bargained down. But I'm not a lawyer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk