Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire TOTALLY SCREWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you buy the fire arm from an individual the government is not involved.

Jim

There are all kinds of laws that strip fundamental rights and affect activities having nothing to do with the infraction adjudicated against. It's the way governments control people and shape society into the ineffective gelding that present no threat to their criminal activities. Time to burn it down.

I know we had a member of our church under similar circumstances, and he checked into hunting with a muzzleloader. I don't know what his conviction was for, but they told him no.

What happens when he gets pulled over for rolling thru a stop sign or in a DUI checkpoint and has said gun in the car?

Unlawful possesion of a firearm?

If they catch him in possession of a firearm or ammunition they will be involved, in their usual overreaching, criminal way. He could go to prison for possession of a .22 CB. Our unconstitutional government at work.

^^ exactly. His situation isn't just about buying a firearm but possession as well.

Basically, and as you have found out, you're SOL..

There IS a case (just heard about it yesterday) where a guy who was convicted of check fraud (IIRC) some years ago and is prevented from having a firearm is suing (can't recall who) to have that law changed to allow firearms possession for criminals with records of non-violent convictions - saying that firearms banning should be for convictions where actual violence was used in the crime.. In some ways, I have no issue with that..

Because the gov't is now trying to get even the most mundane violations changed to 'felony' status.. Why? It's a way for the gov't to legally ban firearms from a citizen.. The more they can make any crime a felony or gross misdemeanor, the more than can restrict firearms ownership.. Just another back-door gun control scheme..

I knew someone in this situation years ago. He was lucky. He had a friend who who was a ranking officer in the sheriffs dept. He was advised not to take prayer for judgement (like the his lawyer advised him to do) because that would be a conviction, and that would prevent him from owning firearms.

Instead, the fellow went to anger management therapy, and got a letter from his therapist stating that this fellow was not a habitual "wife beater" (no previous record of any crime), and that he felt it was an isolated instance. He went to therapy before his court date so he had that to present, along with the letter. The charges were dismissed. He got lucky, and learned his lesson.

If he listened to his lawyer, he would have been screwed. His lawyer did not mention anything about the restriction of firearms, and the guy did not know anything until his deputy friend gave him the word.

I am constantly amazed at what people will post on the campfire..

I remember listening to G. Gordon Liddy on the radio talking about going shooting with his wife and children, after he got out of prison.
He chuckled and said 'I cannot own firearms, how ever my wife has one of the finest colletions you ever see'.

Jim

You say that as a joke, but if you look at statistics you will see that is the rational decision of more and more people.

Big + 1 and I am not "joshing".


Trvis

Thanks Matlock.


Travis

I don't forsee our courts deeming domestics "non-violent" any time in the near future.


Travis

It's not exactly a secret. The form you fill out asks the question directly. You have to check "Yes" or "No".


Travis

I am not sure on the hunting license thing, BUT I was told a guy in a simular situation was nailed after registering his deer this past season. I need to research the details on it.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal 6-13-2012
A Hartford man charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after he bagged two deer with his father's gun has asked the state Supreme Court to review his case.

Thomas M. Pocian, 44, of Hartford argues the state law that bans felons from carrying guns is unconstitutional because it doesn't distinguish between violent and nonviolent felons.

In 1986, Pocian was convicted of three felonies for writing nearly $1,500 worth of forged checks with a friend. Pocian, who was 18 at the time, paid restitution and was sentenced to three years' probation, according to court records.

In November 2008, Pocian shot the two deer and registered them with the state Department of Natural Resources. Because Pocian used a gun, Washington County District Attorney Mark Bensen filed the new charge.

Pocian was charged under a state law that bans any felon from having or using a gun for any reason - for life. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, a fine of $25,000, or both. The case is on hold while the appeal on the constitutional question is pending.

Pocian first asked Washington County Circuit Judge Todd K. Martens to throw out the charge. Martens refused.

In April, the state Court of Appeals agreed with Martens.

On Monday, Pocian filed a petition asking the state Supreme Court to review his case. Pocian argues the law "is unconstitutional as applied to him, considering the crime, the time that passed since his conviction and his law-abiding history." It also is unconstitutional because it treats all felons the same - regardless of their crimes - and bans them from carrying guns without trying to determine whether they are likely to commit gun-related acts of violence in the future, Pocian's petition says.

Pocian also argued the law is overly broad.

"Oddly, although Wisconsin's felon-in-possession law includes countless nonviolent felonies, individuals convicted of violent and dangerous misdemeanors may retain their right to keep and bear arms," the petition says. "This inconsistency tends to undermine the law's proffered public-safety basis."

The fact that felons lose their right to bear arms forever is another problem, the petition says.

"Individuals convicted many years earlier of a nonviolent felony have no meaningful opportunity to regain their right to keep and bear arms for hunting or for defense of self, family and home," the petition says. "However, upon completing their sentences, those same felons have their other fundamental civil rights restored, including their right to vote."

The state attorney general's office is handling the case on appeal. Steven P. Means, executive assistant attorney general, said Monday the state had not yet filed a response.

"Although I can't say definitively that we will oppose the petition before we actually analyze it, I don't know of any reason at this time why we wouldn't oppose it," he said in an email.

In past filings, the state argued the Second Amendment applies only to self-defense and that the right to bear arms can be restricted by the Legislature to preserve public safety. And while state attorneys conceded that Pocian "at first blush, presents a sympathetic case," they contended that all felons, regardless of the nature of their past crimes, pose a safety threat to the public.

get your:
wife
son
best friend
GF
BF

to fill out the 4473 for you!

Word.



P.S. did you change your name?