|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 24, 2013, 10:49 AM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Is there a federal counterpart to this? |
|
April 24, 2013, 10:49 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Spats, not quite the same but related would be Bernard Goetz; not guilty of aggravated assault / ADW, but convicted of unlawful carry.
|
April 24, 2013, 11:12 AM | #53 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Well, JD, I have to say: That IS very interesting! A quick search on the Westlaw Key Numbers turns up "transitory possession" as a defense, as well as "self-protection as necessity."
Just looking over thse, it's the "imminency" aspect that jumps out at me. It's one thing for a prohibited person to pick up a pistol when an attacker is inside the house, and quite another to buy one when the threat is not imminent. Some of the caselaw, picked up from a few cases that I saw. Please bear in mind that I did not assess these for precedential value. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
April 24, 2013, 11:15 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Spats, the Michigan cases refer specifically to a situation in which a convicted felon takes possession of an assailant's weapon and then uses it to defend himself.
Here's a link to the original Michigan Supreme Court decision referenced in the Goree case. In that case, People vs. Dupree, the defendant was a convicted felon who took a weapon away from an assailant during a confrontation at a family party. He then used the weapon to shoot the assailant three times. The defendant challenged the assault charges raised against him, asserting that he acted in self defense. He was originally acquitted of assault but convicted of being a felon in possession. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling reversing that conviction, stating that: ...[W]e agree with the Court of Appeals that self-defense is generally available for a felon-in-possession charge if supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant introduced sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that he violated the felon-in-possession statute but that his violation could be justified because he honestly and reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger and that it was necessary for him to exercise force to protect himself. Therefore, we hold that self-defense is an available defense under these facts.Edit: I see you found the US Supreme Court decision I looked for, but couldn't find. Interesting stuff, and encouraging in terms of the Court's viewing self-defense as a right that trumps what would otherwise be criminal conduct. (Which seems only logical: if it justifies homicide, it ought to justify being, for a short time, a felon in possession.)
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
April 24, 2013, 11:18 AM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 24, 2013, 11:29 AM | #56 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Vanya, it appears that SD most certainly can be interposed in a felon-in-possession charge. However, see my comments above about the transitory nature of the possession, and the imminent nature that the threat must pose.
From People v. Dupree, to which you provided a link: Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 24, 2013, 11:49 AM | #57 |
Member
Join Date: April 15, 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 16
|
sluser, I'm greatly saddened by the trials and tribulation of your sister. Unfortunately her lawyer is right, currently there appears to be no available path for restoration of her rights. The appropriation restriction is an absolute stop and has apparently been affirmed by the SCOTUS (US v. Bean). At this point the only path for relief appears to be through Congress, I imagine only a very narrowly-worded modification to the appropriation restriction (ex. only fund relief applications for reason of mental commitment by those who have been declared competent in a most stringent way after a considerable period of time) would have a ghost of a chance. A long, uphill slog to be sure, but your sister sounds like someone who has come a long way uphill already. Good luck
|
April 24, 2013, 12:15 PM | #58 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Unfortunately the 4473 PDF does not allow one to copy and paste.
The "Exception" as described in the help section at the end of the document explains the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 to only apply to FEDERAL Adjudications of Mental Deficiency. Further more http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49 Here we see the Government instructing the reader Quote:
The appeal to the ATF is strictly for appealing Federal findings- Convictions, and Adjudications. Edited to Add: In Pub. L. 110-180 NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 we are treated to this little gem: Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by JimDandy; April 24, 2013 at 12:31 PM. |
|||
April 26, 2013, 10:51 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 105
|
Should this woman be carrying a gun?
Four years ago the OP's sister was raped. I empathize.
After that she attempts suicide and refuses treatment and the court institutionalized her for a period of time as a threat to herself. I don't know if this was overnight or for four years. Regarding her current condition the OP says she "seams to have recoverd as much as anyone could expect". I'm not quite sure what that means, but if someone is carrying a gun, I want them fully recovered. What do her doctors say? _______________________________________________________________ RE the mechanics of getting it done, she could contact her Congressman and Senators. They could probably get it done with a single phone call. If they fail her she could contact National Organization of Women or a similar organization. They live for such things. |
April 26, 2013, 10:59 AM | #60 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Accordingly, closed.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
|
|