Felons might be allowed to have guns in Louisiana (1 Viewer)

[SaintRob39]

If that is the case then the law is really screwed up. He can get his license back and drive a car but can't have a shotgun. That is funny.

 

[St. Widge]

Both of these comments are incorrect to some extent. A convicted felon in Louisiana can possess a firearm if the felony is not listed in the statute regarding felon in possession of a firearm. (See statute below) It is not necessary to get a pardon. If you are on probation or parole, regardless of the felony, it would violate the probation or parole, but it is not a new crime. This is not just since the amendment was passed. It has been like that for several years. (At least since 1998 because I have that criminal code in front of me right now).

Also, if anyone is interested, if you look at paragraph D of the statute, an air rifle would never be prohibited under the statue because it does not fire the projectile with an explosive, but through compressed air.

And for the record, I am a Lousiana attorney and 99% of my practice is criminal defense.

Yeah, I'm not up on the criminal code or the precise laws on felons having possession of fire arms and you clearly know it better than me. But, I guess the only point I was trying to make is that the Constitutional Amendment that was recently passed, at least in the eyes of one Judge, makes those laws unconstitutional. I wasn't really speaking to the veracity of his statement of what LA law was, but I didn't bother to check to see if he was right. Anyway, thanks for the correct information. All I know about criminal law is what I learned in law school and that was too long ago for me to want to think about.

 

[St. Chris]

OK so for the attorney in here. If a guy has a third offense (felony) DUI, no wrecks or deaths resulted, would he be able to possess a firearm after probation is served? If so then he must have had some other charge that led to the 6 months house arrest.

Under those circumstances, the DUI would not prevent him from possessing a firearm once off of probation. But he could still have served those 6 months house arrest on the DUI. That has no affect on the firearm issue.

 

[LSSpam]

I don't disagree. Although, I think it's an open question whether just being a felon makes a person more likely to commit a crime using a gun. I think it's likely true for those who have committed crimes using guns in the past or who were convicted of a violent crime, but not necessarily so for someone who got convicted of possession of marijuana, embezzlement, mail fraud, etc.

And, I'm not sure that guns are more expensive on the black market or not readily available. Guns from retailers are generally new and more expensive than the cheap used guns you can buy on the street. I know it's only anecdotal evidence, but I've talked to people who grew up in New Orleans housing projects and they tell me that you can easily buy a gun on the street for $200 to $300 which is cheaper than any legal retailer.

But, I overall agree that tighter background checks and background checks that are tailored to find out who has a serious mental illness and who is prone to commit violent crimes would be the most effective thing that we can do to stop gun violence. And, I agree that it would be much less invasive on individual rights and less arbitrary.

Well the black market gun supply comes from somewhere. It's not as though there is some secret underground gun factory, nor are they imported as drugs are (at least not mostly. Guns flow out of the US, not in, in general). These were guns legally produced and marketed for legal sale at some time. They tend to be either purchased by straw men and then resold on the black market at a markup, or stolen, which is probably where the guns you describe come from.

Chicago seized a reported 50,000+ guns in the past decade, extrapolate that to the entire country. Combined with the normal failure rate of weapons likely being poorly maintained, which isn't much but still some, that implies a huge steady influx of guns going into the black market system every year, even if some of the guns used in gun crimes were legally obtained.

What's interesting about the Chicago experience is the Mississippi connection

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

Most guns came from Illinois itself, but about 10% came from Mississippi, and more specifically the delta. Why? Guns are easier to acquire down here and many people in Chicago have family connections to the Mississippi delta.

Choking off this supply is the single most direct way to reduce gun violence. It'll still happen, because you won't stop it 100%, or even 50%, and there are still a large number of legally obtained guns used in crime, but it seems pretty obvious that it would have a noticeable effect.


Targeting illegal gun ownership can be done by a number of measures, some examples

1) making people somehow legally liable for how their gun is used if it was not properly secured and reported stolen

2) increasing the traceability of guns

3) tightening gun buying restrictions, not necessarily to deny more people guns but to ensure that guns purchased are done so in a consistent, trackable way.

4) increased investigation and prosecution of attempted illegal gun purchases

5) focus on investigating, tracking, domestic gun blackmarkets.

The thing about all of those above items is, other then making it a bit more of a pain in the *** to buy a gun, it doesn't really infringe in the rights of any law abiding gun owner.

It seems like this should be a very easy middle ground for all sides to meet on.

 

[St. Chris]

Yeah, I'm not up on the criminal code or the precise laws on felons having possession of fire arms and you clearly know it better than me. But, I guess the only point I was trying to make is that the Constitutional Amendment that was recently passed, at least in the eyes of one Judge, makes those laws unconstitutional. I wasn't really speaking to the veracity of his statement of what LA law was, but I didn't bother to check to see if he was right. Anyway, thanks for the correct information. All I know about criminal law is what I learned in law school and that was too long ago for me to want to think about.

As I said above, I think the judge loses this one. I don't think the amendment makes the statute unconstitutional. But I'm not the one wearing the robe, so I could be wrong.

The bolded part is why I rarely express an opinion on here about legal issues. Most discussions are not related to criminal. Such as all the bounty issues superchuck was explaining. I would never try to explain any of that because what I learned in law school on those topics was forgotten once I passed the bar.

 

[LSSpam]

Oh and for non-violent felonies I agree. But I think if you use a gun in a crime, you should not be able to possess or acquire a gun in the future. By the same token, if you commit a felony by driving under the influence, you should not be driving again either.

I am, in many respects, very libertarian. But I do believe that demonstrated, proven irresponsibility with some rights is just cause to not be entrusted with them in the future. If you're able to draw a clean, hard line between "responsible" and "irresponsible" (and I think using a gun to rob someone is an easily defined standard), then that's something government can do.

 

[Saint77]

Illegal Gun Purchases Attempted At Majority Of U.S. Firearms Retailers, Survey Says

Given the volume of people who attempt to illegal purchase guns, evidently purchasing them through normal channels remains a viable option. And if so many try and get denied, obviously some have to occasionally succeed.

According to a study done in 2011, it's upwards of 40k known by gun retailers, so you can assume a smaller number above that that succeed.

Similar to buying cigs or alcohol vs buying pot, going to the black market is expensive, dangerous, and greatly increases your exposure to arrest. It's also a lot less available. I would say actively prosecuting and tightening gun buying registration seems like a far more effective plan to reduce gun violence then silly things like arguing over a 9 vs 10 magazine limit, or fixating on nebulous definitions of "assault guns" when handguns make up by far the majority of gun crimes in the US.

And that's a lot less invasive of the rights of law abiding citizens.

This a topic Wayne LaPierre brought up several times and subsequently ignored by many politicians and judiciary committees. The main problem being no one ever prosecutes failed attempts to buy illegally. Thats gotta change. I also think that if your rejected, there needs to be clear definition as to whats prosecutable and whats not, and there has to be recourse in case there are correctable issues, like a denial and a prosecution attempt based on incorrect records.

 

[St. Widge]

Well the black market gun supply comes from somewhere. It's not as though there is some secret underground gun factory, nor are they imported as drugs are (at least not mostly. Guns flow out of the US, not in, in general). These were guns legally produced and marketed for legal sale at some time. They tend to be either purchased by straw men and then resold on the black market at a markup, or stolen, which is probably where the guns you describe come from.

Chicago seized a reported 50,000+ guns in the past decade, extrapolate that to the entire country. Combined with the normal failure rate of weapons likely being poorly maintained, which isn't much but still some, that implies a huge steady influx of guns going into the black market system every year, even if some of the guns used in gun crimes were legally obtained.

What's interesting about the Chicago experience is the Mississippi connection

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

Most guns came from Illinois itself, but about 10% came from Mississippi, and more specifically the delta. Why? Guns are easier to acquire down here and many people in Chicago have family connections to the Mississippi delta.

Choking off this supply is the single most direct way to reduce gun violence. It'll still happen, because you won't stop it 100%, or even 50%, and there are still a large number of legally obtained guns used in crime, but it seems pretty obvious that it would have a noticeable effect.


Targeting illegal gun ownership can be done by a number of measures, some examples

1) making people somehow legally liable for how their gun is used if it was not properly secured and reported stolen

2) increasing the traceability of guns

3) tightening gun buying restrictions, not necessarily to deny more people guns but to ensure that guns purchased are done so in a consistent, trackable way.

4) increased investigation and prosecution of attempted illegal gun purchases

5) focus on investigating, tracking, domestic gun blackmarkets.

The thing about all of those above items is, other then making it a bit more of a pain in the *** to buy a gun, it doesn't really infringe in the rights of any law abiding gun owner.

It seems like this should be a very easy middle ground for all sides to meet on.

Excellent post and some really logical ideas.

 

[St. Widge]

As I said above, I think the judge loses this one. I don't think the amendment makes the statute unconstitutional. But I'm not the one wearing the robe, so I could be wrong.

The bolded part is why I rarely express an opinion on here about legal issues. Most discussions are not related to criminal. Such as all the bounty issues superchuck was explaining. I would never try to explain any of that because what I learned in law school on those topics was forgotten once I passed the bar.

Yeah, I actually know some Con Law (although all I do is toxic torts), but I'm out of my depth on criminal law. I probably should have kept my mouth shut.

But, I do tend to agree with you on the Constitutionality of the law. It just seems like it would meet strict scrutiny.

 

[Saint77]

Well the black market gun supply comes from somewhere. It's not as though there is some secret underground gun factory, nor are they imported as drugs are (at least not mostly. Guns flow out of the US, not in, in general). These were guns legally produced and marketed for legal sale at some time. They tend to be either purchased by straw men and then resold on the black market at a markup, or stolen, which is probably where the guns you describe come from.

Chicago seized a reported 50,000+ guns in the past decade, extrapolate that to the entire country. Combined with the normal failure rate of weapons likely being poorly maintained, which isn't much but still some, that implies a huge steady influx of guns going into the black market system every year, even if some of the guns used in gun crimes were legally obtained.

What's interesting about the Chicago experience is the Mississippi connection

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

Most guns came from Illinois itself, but about 10% came from Mississippi, and more specifically the delta. Why? Guns are easier to acquire down here and many people in Chicago have family connections to the Mississippi delta.

Choking off this supply is the single most direct way to reduce gun violence. It'll still happen, because you won't stop it 100%, or even 50%, and there are still a large number of legally obtained guns used in crime, but it seems pretty obvious that it would have a noticeable effect.


Targeting illegal gun ownership can be done by a number of measures, some examples

1) making people somehow legally liable for how their gun is used if it was not properly secured and reported stolen

2) increasing the traceability of guns

3) tightening gun buying restrictions, not necessarily to deny more people guns but to ensure that guns purchased are done so in a consistent, trackable way.

4) increased investigation and prosecution of attempted illegal gun purchases

5) focus on investigating, tracking, domestic gun blackmarkets.

The thing about all of those above items is, other then making it a bit more of a pain in the *** to buy a gun, it doesn't really infringe in the rights of any law abiding gun owner.

It seems like this should be a very easy middle ground for all sides to meet on.

The problem with taking the data from Chicago into a nationwide area is that, so many areas are different form Chicago. Some states, as in the NE region, have a host of firearms dealers and manufacturers. This doesn't necessarily mean trafficing and black market avaiability are goign to be anywhere close to Chicago. Chicago is a vacuum ,arguably, because of the restrictions, and some other issues, as well.

If your going to make folks liable for stolen firearms, you can, as far as i'm concerned begin to make folks responsible for stolen vehicle damage., up to and including death and dismemberment. The reported stolen part, I get, however.

As far as infringment goes, for the majority, im sure it wouldn't, as long as were not talking intrusive methods of tracking, like every time I go to the range, I have to have my seriel numbers traced, or make me do a background check on my family member.

I have to be honest, buying a gun and filling out form 4473 is alrready a PITA. It has to be absolutely immaculately filled out. No errors, no misspellings, no abvreviations. no errors at all.

 

[LSSpam]

If your going to make folks liable for stolen firearms, you can, as far as i'm concerned begin to make folks responsible for stolen vehicle damage., up to and including death and dismemberment. The reported stolen part, I get, however.

Not quite. Vehicles, if stolen, aren't inherently going to be used for violent or even nefarious purposes. A stolen gun has one purpose, to be used in a violent gun crime. Maybe not by the immediate individual who stole it, but the end point of a stolen gun is almost always going to be gun violence.

Therefore owning a weapon is, and should be, a greater responsibility. Why should it not be treated as such? If you want the right, own the responsibility as well.

I'm not saying you need to serve life in prison because your gun was stolen, but if you had it just laying around and didnt want to report it stolen, and it was used in a crime, you do bear some responsibility for that.

Look we hold parents responsible if they allow alcohol at a teenage party and they drive drunk. Bars have been held legally liable for over serving patrons who drive drunk. How about instead of buying your third $700 rifle. You buy a gun safe instead and make the world a little safer? (Not you specifically, I'm sure you personally are very responsible).

 

[Saint77]

Not quite. Vehicles, if stolen, aren't inherently going to be used for violent or even nefarious purposes. A stolen gun has one purpose, to be used in a violent gun crime. Maybe not by the immediate individual who stole it, but the end point of a stolen gun is almost always going to be gun violence.

Therefore owning a weapon is, and should be, a greater responsibility. Why should it not be treated as such? If you want the right, own the responsibility as well.

I'm not saying you need to serve life in prison because your gun was stolen, but if you had it just laying around and didnt want to report it stolen, and it was used in a crime, you do bear some responsibility for that.

Look we hold parents responsible if they allow alcohol at a teenage party and they drive drunk. Bars have been held legally liable for over serving patrons who drive drunk. How about instead of buying your third $700 rifle. You buy a gun safe instead and make the world a little safer? (Not you specifically, I'm sure you personally are very responsible).

Not neccesarily true on both accounts, a vehicle can be used to joyride, used in a crime, or taken by a drunk just to get home. its arguable that just the theft alone is a nefarious act, it doesnt take much for the illegal driver to hit something, even if minor. even if they take it to sell it, the sale is a nefarious activity.

and just for the sake of conversation. a stolen gun can be used for defensive proposes, no?

 

[Big_L]

Not quite. Vehicles, if stolen, aren't inherently going to be used for violent or even nefarious purposes. A stolen gun has one purpose, to be used in a violent gun crime. Maybe not by the immediate individual who stole it, but the end point of a stolen gun is almost always going to be gun violence.

Therefore owning a weapon is, and should be, a greater responsibility. Why should it not be treated as such? If you want the right, own the responsibility as well.

I'm not saying you need to serve life in prison because your gun was stolen, but if you had it just laying around and didnt want to report it stolen, and it was used in a crime, you do bear some responsibility for that.

Look we hold parents responsible if they allow alcohol at a teenage party and they drive drunk. Bars have been held legally liable for over serving patrons who drive drunk. How about instead of buying your third $700 rifle. You buy a gun safe instead and make the world a little safer? (Not you specifically, I'm sure you personally are very responsible).

I understand your point, however a stolen vehicle is often used in commission of a crime. So, I am on board with requiring firearm owners to report stolen firearms, but then, holding them responsible after they have done their duty is a little drastic.

 

[krushing]

The last Mississippi governor used the hunting excuse to pardon convicted felons. Some were murderers who murdered in crimes of passion. .

 

[CreoleblueWhoDAT]

Who else has read the thread title as "FALCONS might be allowed to carry guns in Louisiana." I can't be the only one.