Post by: bmonti76 on January 18, 2014, 01:25:31 PM
I have my rights, a permit to conceal, and consider myself a responsible gun owner. I have a couple of friends however that have made choices in their lives that no longer allow them this same luxury. I am curious... can they drive in my car with me while im carrying can I ride in theirs? can the come in my house, if guns are in the safe or not in the safe? whos responsibility is it? do I have to keep them away from my arms or do they need to know who around them is carrying.
these are not bad guys, I wouldn't hang with them if they were. They have made mistakes. Do I think all felons need to loose their right.. not really sure its an interesting debate.
I hope this doesn't start a feud around who should and who shouldn't have rights, that's not the point. I just want to know the rules.
Thanks
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 01:32:08 PM
They are the ones with restrictions not you, but once you know then you have some responsibility to not provide them with a weapon knowingly.
Other than that you don't need to change anything to suit them.
Post by: bowbuild on January 18, 2014, 01:47:48 PM
Bowbuild
Post by: scout/sniper on January 18, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
I had a friend that lost his gun rights.
He would not ride in my vehicle if there were any firearms in it.
He said that he could be arrested just being in a car with firearms.
I don't know, maybe he didn't know the law, it's just what he told me.
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 02:20:09 PM
A traffic stop could go very unpleasant if the officer recognized him as a felon or worse on parole and there were visible guns in the car and possibly in reach.
Honestly if he's just sitting as a passenger the odds an officer would even pull his ID is very low, unless the stop went very badly for you as a driver.
You can on body carry a handgun with permit and be fine, he has no access.
You can transport a long gun with him in the vehicle, as long as he has no access. I'd put it in the trunk, if in a pickup I'd put it in a padlocked case out of view (empty of course)
Likewise keep the ammo restricted from access.
Now if you're driving to a shooting range and the officer recognizes your buddy as a felon then the stop could go badly very quick with a roadside interrogation, why would you take a known felon to a shooting range? Expect the weapons on you to be made safe in terry stop fashion.
If you're like a lot of guys around here and just carry a farm gun in the rig 24/7 then as long as your buddy can't simply reach over and take it out of a rack or something. As long as you make an effort to restrict access then 99 times out of 100 you'd both be fine.
I represent no law enforcement agency so take this advice according to it's internet value.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 18, 2014, 02:33:31 PM
I figured he was paranoid, and should be.
He was always worried about my permitted carry firearm.
No, I would never give a felon access to a firearm.
Post by: JLS on January 18, 2014, 02:34:41 PM
I could be wrong but,
I had a friend that lost his gun rights.
He would not ride in my vehicle if there were any firearms in it.
He said that he could be arrested just being in a car with firearms.
I don't know, maybe he didn't know the law, it's just what he told me.
As a blanket statement, no he is not correct. It would entirely depend up on the individual circumstance, to include proximity, accessibility, etc.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 18, 2014, 02:37:18 PM
Post by: Grizzly95 on January 18, 2014, 02:48:41 PM
Post by: Smossy on January 18, 2014, 03:17:40 PM
Post by: bmonti76 on January 19, 2014, 10:24:46 AM
Like I said I do consider myself a responsible gun owner. I don't consider my concealed weapon ever accessible to anyone but myself, regardless of their rights. I take that stuff very seriously.
I believe our rights were earned and that they are a privilege to us. we cannot treat them as something that we are entitled too.
The guys I know that have lost their rights as I said are decent men that have made mistakes in life. I believe that most of us learn from mistakes. FORTUNATELY for the safety of all of us there are rules.
I like rules, and I like those that hold us accountable to them.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 02:20:35 PM
This whole law came about in 1996 and is commonly known as "the Lautenberg Amendment." The interesting facts about the law is that it was actually retroactive. You actually had military members and police officers who lost their positions because they had previous DV convictions and had their rights restored, yet this law came about and all of a sudden they couldn't possess firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban)
Post by: Grizzly95 on January 19, 2014, 02:30:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 02:37:23 PM
In WA that is incorrect.I think I am more confused. Do all dv convictions result in loss of rights? I knew some guys that only archery hunted because of dv convictions.Yes all dv convictions take away the gun rights.
In WA firearm rights are only taken away for misdemeanor DV convictions involving assault in the fourth degree, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass in the first degree, or violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from a residence (RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(I)). Obviously a felony DV conviction will take gun rights away.
So if you vandalize your ex girlfriends car and are convicted of DV malicious mischief you will not lose your firearms rights.
Now federally is a different story. Federally, ANY misdemeanor DV conviction results in losing firearms rights. There will be a case in the US Supreme Court this year which will review if the federal law requires the DV to actually be physical violence, or can it be any DV conviction such as vandalism.
Post by: Bofire on January 19, 2014, 02:51:08 PM
Carl
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 03:09:27 PM
OK that clears that a little,Now back to my last question, If you qualify under the federal laws (section 33)and get your rights back you are not prohibited any longer state or federal right?
Its a tricky situation right now.
There is a federal lawsuit filed by Wyoming because they have a law similar to WA. In WA you can have your conviction vacated, however that does not meet the definition of "expunged" or "set aside" under federal law. So if you've been convicted of misdemeanor DV in WA and had your firearm rights restored under state law and even had your conviction vacated under state law, you are federally still prohibited from possessing firearms.
Wyoming is suing the feds to essentially say a vacation (or whatever the term is in their state) should meet the definition of expunged or set-aside.
So easy way to say it is, in WA (and many states) there is no way to get your firearms rights back under federal law for a misdemeanor DV conviction.
http://firearmslawyer.net/blog/index.php/all/2013/07/17/p151 (http://firearmslawyer.net/blog/index.php/all/2013/07/17/p151)
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/07/07-8046.pdf (http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/07/07-8046.pdf)
http://www.wadefense.com/criminal-defense/gun-rights (http://www.wadefense.com/criminal-defense/gun-rights)
Post by: stevemiller on January 19, 2014, 03:10:39 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 03:16:21 PM
Actually in WA. there is no way to have any conviction erased.And another point it is easier for a person to get the gun rights restored for a felon than it is for a DV. conviction in some cases.Because of the Lautenburg Ammendment,It doesnt include felonies.
That is correct and that is the reason why the feds don't honor Washington's "vacation" of crimes. In order for it to meet federal standards the state conviction must be totally erased. Since under WA law prosecutors can use previous vacated crimes in sentencing of new crimes, it doesn't meet the standards of being federally expunged.
And yes it is easier to get firearms rights restored federally for felony DV then it is misdemeanor DV.
Post by: JJB11B on January 19, 2014, 03:24:43 PM
Post by: mazama on January 19, 2014, 08:04:16 PM
Post by: The Weazle on January 20, 2014, 01:27:26 AM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: bowbuild on January 20, 2014, 09:53:19 AM
An argument with your wife in which the cops are called, one of you are going to jail! The person going to jail will lose firearm rights. Those rights are so hard to get back you might as well give your guns to your family members and take up archery hunting for life. I'm in the military, and a loud argument in housing will get the MP's called. They come, take you to jail, turn you over to the state, and you can't even have a gun for your duties in the military anymore. I've seen it dozens of times. Best thing to do is just calmly leave the residence and go stay with a friend. Especially if you've been drinking. Don't drive, just call a buddy and have him or her pick you up and leave. One argument where you get loud can leave you firearm less for life! Best thing to do in all is not argue but we all know there is no perfect world!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This is the reason I am so dead against DV laws taking your gun rights. I think every person who believes in "gun rights" which are a privilege now through carefull manipulation, should be up in arms about this topic. Your right to "bear arms" has been turned into weapon against us, and we tolerate it...pathetic. What's ironic is gun lobbyists support such laws.
If a gun is used in ANY way during a DV your rights (I mean privlege) should be revoked.
Bowbuild
Post by: Lincoln4 on January 20, 2014, 01:43:32 PM
An argument with your wife in which the cops are called, one of you are going to jail!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Don't know about the MPs, or being on base for said argument, but an argument is hardly going to get you taken to jail in the civilian world. If it were true, we'd be spending most of our shifts in the booking area...
Post by: The Weazle on January 20, 2014, 01:56:40 PM
An argument with your wife in which the cops are called, one of you are going to jail!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Don't know about the MPs, or being on base for said argument, but an argument is hardly going to get you taken to jail in the civilian world. If it were true, we'd be spending most of our shifts in the booking area...
Check the law. If an officer is dispatched for a domestic argument/ fight, one person is sure as hell going to jail. It's the law so that no one dies after the cops leave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: Rainier10 on January 20, 2014, 02:21:07 PM
Post by: Lincoln4 on January 20, 2014, 02:28:03 PM
An argument with your wife in which the cops are called, one of you are going to jail!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Don't know about the MPs, or being on base for said argument, but an argument is hardly going to get you taken to jail in the civilian world. If it were true, we'd be spending most of our shifts in the booking area...
Check the law. If an officer is dispatched for a domestic argument/ fight, one person is sure as hell going to jail. It's the law so that no one dies after the cops leave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I've been checking the law for over 21 years. Please check the Revised Code of Washington 10.31.100, specifically section (2)(c). Hopefully we are just arguing the difference between words (argument and fight/assault). You and the significant other can argue all you want (Unless you might be violating a noise ordinance!). Unless there's PC for a crime it's unlikely anyone will go to jail. :tup:
Post by: Lincoln4 on January 20, 2014, 02:29:21 PM
Post by: The Weazle on January 20, 2014, 05:06:42 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 20, 2014, 06:19:45 PM
Thanks for the link. I have never seen an officer, military or city/county/other show up to a domestic dispute and not arrest someone. This town is probably the worst for it, but for good reason. A few (like 10 or more) years ago, and guy and gal got into an argument, the cops came, decided everyone was calmed down and left, then he killed her. I know a lot of people that can't have guns, or use guns to do their duty due to an argument with the wife when the neighbor called the cops…I don't fault the cops for arresting the guy, but I think the law should be changed for people to get their rights taken for an argument. If there isn't an actual "fight" or assault, why does that guy lose his gun rights. If you and I get into a fight, and one of us goes to jail, is it a felony?
Here is my experience;
There is no law which states that a LEO must arrest for every DV call they respond to. The call has nothing to do with what is observed and investigated in the field. LEOs often have no PC for an arrest for either person.
Nobody is going to lose their gun rights for an arguement. Period.
Gun rights are only lost after a conviction for a crime of Domestic Violence, not a report of DV.
Not all assault convictions result in the loss of gun rights. If "you and I" get into a fight, neither of us will lose our gun rights.....unless we live in a Domestic relationship, or the crime results in a conviction of Assualt 1, 2 or 3 (all felonies). Assault 4 is the level of conviction that you will not lose your gun rights over, unless it is a DV conviction.
Post by: Lincoln4 on January 20, 2014, 07:22:27 PM
Post by: Lincoln4 on January 20, 2014, 07:28:44 PM
Thanks for the link. I have never seen an officer, military or city/county/other show up to a domestic dispute and not arrest someone. This town is probably the worst for it, but for good reason. A few (like 10 or more) years ago, and guy and gal got into an argument, the cops came, decided everyone was calmed down and left, then he killed her. I know a lot of people that can't have guns, or use guns to do their duty due to an argument with the wife when the neighbor called the cops…I don't fault the cops for arresting the guy, but I think the law should be changed for people to get their rights taken for an argument. If there isn't an actual "fight" or assault, why does that guy lose his gun rights. If you and I get into a fight, and one of us goes to jail, is it a felony?
You'd be amazed by the number of "arguments" I've been to where apparently the arguing has been so loud that furniture shatters and blood vessels burst. :chuckle: If you did a public disclosure request on those arguments, I suspect that there would be much more to it than what you were told. Just sayin'... ;)
Post by: The Weazle on January 20, 2014, 07:35:51 PM
If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights. Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you. I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 20, 2014, 07:47:32 PM
Washington is a must arrest state. It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence.
If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights. Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you. I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day.
Can you show us this "must arrest" statute? Also, where "it" states that a "verbal assault" can "institute" a threat to physical violence?
Post by: Lincoln4 on January 20, 2014, 07:52:39 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 20, 2014, 07:55:51 PM
Threats of physical harm are completely different than an arguement.
Post by: The Weazle on January 20, 2014, 08:13:24 PM
Washington is a must arrest state. It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence.
If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights. Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you. I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day.
Can you show us this "must arrest" statute? Also, where "it" states that a "verbal assault" can "institute" a threat to physical violence?
Its all in the link posted above, and Lincoln verified it.
He also dispelled some rumors for me, for which I am thankful.
I do know that an argument can get you in jail, and your gun rights lost…Maybe most of the guys I "know" are downplaying it, but I know for a fact it happens, and it happens more than you want to know about. I bet most of them get the cases dropped, and their rights restored, but the burden of proof is on the "offender" and many guys don't have the money and time to fight it for long.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 20, 2014, 08:18:09 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 20, 2014, 08:35:17 PM
Washington is a must arrest state. It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence.
If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights. Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you. I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day.
Can you show us this "must arrest" statute? Also, where "it" states that a "verbal assault" can "institute" a threat to physical violence?
Its all in the link posted above, and Lincoln verified it.
He also dispelled some rumors for me, for which I am thankful.
I do know that an argument can get you in jail, and your gun rights lost…Maybe most of the guys I "know" are downplaying it, but I know for a fact it happens, and it happens more than you want to know about. I bet most of them get the cases dropped, and their rights restored, but the burden of proof is on the "offender" and many guys don't have the money and time to fight it for long.
Sorry if I come across as arguementative, but it is not all in the link that was posted. Lincoln did not verify your claims.
Are you convinced that a LEO must arrest you for being involved in an arguement? An arguement and threats of physical violence are two completely different things. No where in the statute does is state that a "verbal assualt" can in anyway get you arrested. You are misconstruing a physical threat for an arguement.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 09:37:12 PM
Washington is a must arrest state. It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence.
If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights. Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you. I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day.
Can you show us this "must arrest" statute? Also, where "it" states that a "verbal assault" can "institute" a threat to physical violence?
Its all in the link posted above, and Lincoln verified it.
He also dispelled some rumors for me, for which I am thankful.
I do know that an argument can get you in jail, and your gun rights lost…Maybe most of the guys I "know" are downplaying it, but I know for a fact it happens, and it happens more than you want to know about. I bet most of them get the cases dropped, and their rights restored, but the burden of proof is on the "offender" and many guys don't have the money and time to fight it for long.
I would guess they are downplaying it quite a lot, or else the argument involved a phrase along the nature of "I'm going to dig a hole and bury you" or something else of the sort. Like maybe a flower vase suddenly defying all laws of physics and crashing into a wall as Lincoln4 suggested.
If there is PC for a DV assault the primary aggressor must be arrested. Both CAN be arrested. If there is no PC for the DV assault, then unless there is some other arrestable crime no one is going to jail.
Post by: Becky on January 21, 2014, 11:46:44 AM
I have a friend who done some bad things way back when and lost his rights to have a firearm ...when got got out of jail the judge told him he could hunt with a bow BUT CAN NOT CARRY A KNIFE :yike: That seriously threw me for a loop :chuckle:
Smossy was told the same thing about knives somewhere along the lines... can't find an actual law for it though. Something about 3" or greater of a pocket knife.
Post by: Smossy on January 22, 2014, 12:30:47 PM
3 1/2" but its more at an officers discretion. I see a knife as more a tool, not a weapon. But it is most definietly potentialy lethal. But so is a screwdriver :dunno:I have a friend who done some bad things way back when and lost his rights to have a firearm ...when got got out of jail the judge told him he could hunt with a bow BUT CAN NOT CARRY A KNIFE :yike: That seriously threw me for a loop :chuckle:
Smossy was told the same thing about knives somewhere along the lines... can't find an actual law for it though. Something about 3" or greater of a pocket knife.
Post by: csaaphill on January 26, 2014, 08:11:28 PM
If a cop does try to take your guns because a friend has a felon I'd squeal like a pig to anyone and everyone who will listen and sue the begeezes out of him/them!
Post by: Crunchy on January 27, 2014, 08:49:31 AM
Firearm Possession Prohibition
Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922[g][1-9]) prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms,
ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a
$250,000 fine. Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release)
makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/
transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
(4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted
to a mental institution;
(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;
(7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
(8) a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person
participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening
an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the
person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits
the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or
partner’s child;
(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Possession of a firearm may be either actual or constructive. The latter has been defined as
follows: “Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and intention at
a given time of exercising dominion and control over the object or over the area in which the object
is locate....” (See U.S. v Booth, et.al. 111 F.3d 2 [1st Cir. September 1997]). If you know the
firearm is present in your residence, vehicle, etc., and if it can be shown that you have the ability to
access and exercise control over that firearm personally or through another individual, then you
could be considered to have constructive possession of the firearm. You would then be subject to
new criminal charges and/or revocation of supervision. For these reasons, all firearms are to be
removed from your residence during the term of supervision.
______________________________________________________________________________