possession of firearm by convicted felon RS 14:95:1 ruled unconstitutional

[sandman7925]

Good.

The Feds can step in though and charge the person if they so choose. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

 

[jmcrawf1]

I know a guy who got tangled up in some sort of banking embezzlement. He was my child hood best friends father. An avid duck hunter and shooting sportsman. A typical Bank Accountant that liked to hunt and shoot and had done so all his life and taught his kids the same.

When I think that he has been completely stripped of his RTKBA and thus the ability to offer his family the kind of protection that a firearm does all b/c he made some bad choices involving bank money etc. It does seem really harsh.



But Robbing a 7/11 at Gun Point, while just as unlawful, obviously brings a whole other realm of irresponsibility to the table.

I don't think it's a double standard either, surely no more than the courts do by assigning more or less years depending on the crime and involvement.

To think farther into it.

What did that law do to begin with? Keep Felons from owning guns? Nope/

These laws rarely prevent, simply punish once committed.

Who said he is stripped of his gun rights? Read the statute JR1572 just posted.

 

[JR1572]

§95.1. Possession of firearm or carrying concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies

A. It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B) which is a felony or simple burglary, burglary of a pharmacy, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities, manufacture or possession of a delayed action incendiary device, manufacture or possession of a bomb, or possession of a firearm while in the possession of or during the sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony, or any crime which is defined as a sex offense in R.S. 15:541, or any crime defined as an attempt to commit one of the above-enumerated offenses under the laws of this state, or who has been convicted under the laws of any other state or of the United States or of any foreign government or country of a crime which, if committed in this state, would be one of the above-enumerated crimes, to possess a firearm or carry a concealed weapon.

B. Whoever is found guilty of violating the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 14:27, whoever is found guilty of attempting to violate the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than seven and one-half years and fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars.

C. The provisions of this Section prohibiting the possession of firearms and carrying concealed weapons by persons who have been convicted of certain felonies shall not apply to any person who has not been convicted of any felony for a period of ten years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

D. For the purposes of this Section, "firearm" means any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, submachine gun, black powder weapon, or assault rifle which is designed to fire or is capable of firing fixed cartridge ammunition or from which a shot or projectile is discharged by an explosive.

Added by Acts 1975, No. 492, §2. Amended by Acts 1980, No. 279, §1; Acts 1985, No. 947, §1; Acts 1990, No. 328, §1; Acts 1992, No. 403, §1; Acts 1994, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 28, §1; Acts 1995, No. 987, §1; Acts 2003, No. 674, §1; Acts 2009, No. 154, §1; Acts 2009, No. 160, §1; Acts 2010, No. 815, §1; Acts 2010, No. 942, §1.

JR1572

All of you need to read the law and attempt to understand it before you start complaining about it.

JR1572

 

[returningliberty]

All of you need to read the law and attempt to understand it before you start complaining about it.

JR1572

I don't understand what there is to complain about. Non violent felons already had their rights restored, now violent felons do too.

It's what the people wanted, right?

 

[general mills]

All of you need to read the law and attempt to understand it before you start complaining about it.

JR1572

I read the law, thanks for posting. I was incorrect about the embezzlement I used in my example. I now understand it and I will still complain. Many of the crimes listed are not related to the irresponsible use of a firearm, wich is the only way I feel this right should be stripped from someone. "Burglary of an inhabited dwelling", for example, is wrong. But I personally feel that if a firearm wasen't used as an accessory in the crime, and the individual did not treaten violence against the inhabitor (bugler gat caught and ran away) the individual has not demonstrated irrisponsibility with a firearm. Same with "or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony", that covers alot of crimes that I don't feel should effect your rights after your crime is paid for.

Don't get me wrong, "felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities" seems fair to me. Someone who has shown they will use a gun illegally for intimidation or violence should not be able to posses one, but I feel the current law is to restrictive.

 

[Hitman]

Who said he is stripped of his gun rights? Read the statute JR1572 just posted.

He did

He is in Georgia right now though

 

[JR1572]

I read the law, thanks for posting. I was incorrect about the embezzlement I used in my example. I now understand it and I will still complain. Many of the crimes listed are not related to the irresponsible use of a firearm, wich is the only way I feel this right should be stripped from someone. "Burglary of an inhabited dwelling", for example, is wrong. But I personally feel that if a firearm wasen't used as an accessory in the crime, and the individual did not treaten violence against the inhabitor (bugler gat caught and ran away) the individual has not demonstrated irrisponsibility with a firearm. Same with "or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony", that covers alot of crimes that I don't feel should effect your rights after your crime is paid for.

Don't get me wrong, "felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities" seems fair to me. Someone who has shown they will use a gun illegally for intimidation or violence should not be able to posses one, but I feel the current law is to restrictive.

See below.

§95.2.1. Illegal carrying of a firearm at a parade with any firearm used in the commission of a crime of violence

A. Whoever commits the crime of illegal carrying of weapons pursuant to R.S. 14:95 with any firearm used in the commission of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B), within one thousand feet of any parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity, shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than one year nor more than five years, or both. Any sentence issued pursuant to the provisions of this Subsection and any sentence issued pursuant to a violation of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B) shall be served consecutively.

B. As used in this Section, the following words mean:

(1) "Firearm" means any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, submachine gun, or assault rifle, which is designed to fire or is capable of firing fixed cartridge ammunition or from which a shot or projectile is discharged by an explosive.

(2) "Parade" for the purposes of this Section shall be defined as any celebration of Mardi Gras or directly related pre-Lenten or carnival related festivities, school parades, parish parades, state parades or municipal parades, or any demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity.

(3) "Parade route" means any public sidewalk, street, highway, bridge, alley, road, or other public passageway upon which a parade travels.

C. Lack of knowledge that the prohibited act occurred on or within one thousand feet of the parade route shall not be a defense.

Acts 2004, No. 661, §1.

JR1572

 

[S&W4ME]

But federal law still says anyone convicted of a felony cannot possess a firearm. So doesn't that make any ruling by the state court irrevelent?

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[JNieman]

But federal law still says anyone convicted of a felony cannot possess a firearm. So doesn't that make any ruling by the state court irrevelent?

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk 2

Depends on whether or not your State wants to fight to retain their rights and stand in the way of the Federal government's unconstitutional overreach.

However, it's not going to happen. The SCOTUS has multiple-times spoken on the fact that because we've trodden on the rights of felons for so long, in many other ways, the Government can trod upon any of their rights whenever they want, if they so choose.

 

[Nomad.2nd]

I agree that gun ownership is a fundamental right.
A molester, rapist, crack "drug", dealer, etc, that unlawfully engaged in a violent act should not be allowed to possess firearms. Just my opinion.

If they are a threat.... don't let them out of jail.

 

[DSpangler]

It's funny that the judges and DA's office in this article are the exact ones that either (1) refuse to prosecute the firearms charge or (2) drop the firearm part for a plea on drugs.

Just an observation.

 

[Hitman]

But federal law still says anyone convicted of a felony cannot possess a firearm.

This is what I thought as well. Which is why the person I mentioned supposedly cannot posses a firearm at this time.

1934 - Gov. Bans violent felons from owning guns in addition to the recently passed law banning them from owning Machine Guns too.
1968 - Expanded to include all felonies, not just violent ones.
1986 - Firearm Owners Protection Act reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns

From what I'm reading the Felon can pretty much regain his RTKBA through his the state if the state has procedures set up for this to happen. Since it's not mandatory for states to do this, not all states have.

I assume if this goes on to become something, than LA might develop a procedure to allow felons to regain their RTKBA.

 

[Grendal]

If they are a threat.... don't let them out of jail.

I agree. The problem is they always get out of jail.

New Orleans had a 7% conviction rate, including prosecution for murder cases.

They all got out.

 

[DS727]

Take the following example and tell me how you feel.

BOB has a problem with crystal meth. To help support his habit, he breaks into several houses and is caught and convicted of burglary of an inhabited dwelling.

BOB serves his sentence and is released. Under current law, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Upon his release from jail, BOB returns to his old habits and breaks into more houses. In one particular house, he helps himself to several firearms. Unfortunately, the homeowner does not have the serial numbers for his firearms so they aren't entered stolen in the nationwide NCIC database.

BOB needs cash, so he takes the stolen firearms to the local pawn shop where he sells them for 1/3 of their value, but he doesn't care cause he got them for free anyway, right?

Officer Friendly is going over the pawn sheets submitted to his department by the pawn shop BOB sold the stolen firearms to.

Officer Friendly is very familiar with BOB and knows he's a burglar and probably stole the weapons he's sold the the pawn shop, even though a check of the serial numbers shows that they haven't been reported stolen.

A warrant is issued for BOB's arrest for 14:95.1 Felon in possession of a firearm, based on the fact that he had the firearms in his possession when he sold them to the pawn shop.

BOB is arrested on the charge and while under interrogation, he admits to taking the firearms and subsequently they are returned to their rightful owner (this time the owner is more responsible and records the serial numbers).

This scenario happens many, many times a year. This is a law that actually WORKS. Personally, I am concerned that if this law is ruled unconstitutional by the LA Supreme Court, many CRIMINALS who should never be in possession of a firearm of ANY type will legally be allowed to do so.

Actions have consequences. Losing your right to possess a firearm is a consequence of your CRIMINAL behavior.

"Well, so-and-so's brother-in-law didn't do anything to deserve not being able to duck hunt anymore."

Tough ****. So-and-so's brother-in-law can have his rights reinstated by the Governor, or he can pound sand and watch Duck Dynasty on TV. Neither option concerns me.

 

[JR1572]

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS- FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.
Question 11.b. - 11.l. Definition of Prohibited Person: Generally, 18 U.S.C. § 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less); is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance; has been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution; has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship; is an alien illegally in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa; or is subject to certain restraining orders. Furthermore, section 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, or receipt in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who is under indictment or information for a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Question 11.b. Under Indictment or Information or Convicted in any Court: An indictment, information, or conviction in any Federal, State, or local court. An information is a formal accusation of a crime verified by a prosecutor.
EXCEPTION to 11.c. and 11.i.: A person who has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned the person for more than one year, or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, is not prohibited from purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm if: (1) under the law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred, the person has been pardoned, the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had their civil rights (the right to vote, sit on a jury, and hold public office) taken away and later restored AND (2) the person is not prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred from receiving or possessing firearms. Persons subject to this exception should answer “no” to 11.c. or 11.i., as applicable.

The above information was copied from the rear of a 4473.

JR1572

 

[Jack]

This is what I thought as well. Which is why the person I mentioned supposedly cannot posses a firearm at this time.

1934 - Gov. Bans violent felons from owning guns in addition to the recently passed law banning them from owning Machine Guns too.
1968 - Expanded to include all felonies, not just violent ones.
1986 - Firearm Owners Protection Act reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns

From what I'm reading the Felon can pretty much regain his RTKBA through his the state if the state has procedures set up for this to happen. Since it's not mandatory for states to do this, not all states have.

I assume if this goes on to become something, than LA might develop a procedure to allow felons to regain their RTKBA.

Louisiana already allows some felons to regain their right. Tim9lives is an example, according to him he plead to felony dope charges and owns guns now.

 

[machinedrummer]

It's very simple. If a person has been deemed unfit to bear arms then that person should not be free to walk among the free people. Prosecute and execute and this problem will fix itself. Non-violent crime I feel is another issue. If you serve out your time and penalty the you should have the right to the 2nd. Just my opinion.

 

[tim9lives]

Louisiana already allows some felons to regain their right. Tim9lives is an example, according to him he plead to felony dope charges and owns guns now.

No Jack...according to me...Corrupt NOPD cops...brothers David and Ronald Singleton... falsified reports to the DA. I was charged with felony possession when in fact the police only found paraphernalia in my house after I had an intruder in my house.

Since you are such an obsessive little man who can't let go of this issue Jack....At least get the story correct.

But then again...why should I expect you to get it correct. Your behavior only exemplifies how petty of a person you are. Get a life Jack and move on. I've moved on with my life.

 

[JadeRaven]

If they are a threat.... don't let them out of jail.

Exactly.

If a felon can't be trusted with a gun outside of jail, then he should still be in jail.

 

[madwabbit]

I believe that once someone commits a felony of specific degree, or multiples of any degree, that they have waived their citizenship and the inherent rights thereto.

Felon's shouldnt own guns because guns aren't allowed in prison. The most offensive terminology I can conceivably recall are the words "early parole". Lock them up, make it permanent, and make it restless, painful, miserable, and a feared place to spend your days. Our "felon-resorts" need to be bulldozed. You want early parole? We release you 5 years early by signing this document, waiving your 2nd and 4th amendment rights permanently.

Let me put my flame suit on...

Ok. I'm ready. Go!