Fogbow

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:10 pm

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:03 pm

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 4:55 pm
Cf.: Due to how good-behavior credits are calculated, a "year and a day" sentence often is less time than a year sentence.

But doesn't the entire sentence count towards not owning a weapon, even if they don't do day for day?

Under the federal felon-in-possession law, it’s not the actual sentence received, but the maximum sentence they could have received.

So no more gunz for him?

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:20 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:10 pm

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:03 pm

But doesn't the entire sentence count towards not owning a weapon, even if they don't do day for day?

Under the federal felon-in-possession law, it’s not the actual sentence received, but the maximum sentence they could have received.

So no more gunz for him?

Yes. No more gunz. Federal law says if you’re convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year, no gunz for you. I don’t know what the actual max was, but I’m sure the judge who gave the guy more than a year did. And since he got more than a year, we know his offense was punishable by more than a year.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:27 pm Yes. No more gunz. Federal law says if you’re convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year, no gunz for you. I don’t know what the actual max was, but I’m sure the judge who gave the guy more than a year did. And since he got more than a year, we know his offense was punishable by more than a year.

That's for federal felon-in-possession.

How (generally) do states view federal convictions for felon-in-possession purposes?

You all act like these guys are going to obey laws about giving up their guns.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:59 pm You all act like these guys are going to obey laws about giving up their guns.

Does anyone know the penalty for a felon who is found to be possessing a gun?

much ado wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:37 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:59 pm You all act like these guys are going to obey laws about giving up their guns.

Does anyone know the penalty for a felon who is found to be possessing a gun?

Federal is Max ten years [unless one has three previous violent felony convictions then it's 15], up to 250K fine.

In GA 1-5 years,,,

Cool.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:35 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:27 pm Yes. No more gunz. Federal law says if you’re convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year, no gunz for you. I don’t know what the actual max was, but I’m sure the judge who gave the guy more than a year did. And since he got more than a year, we know his offense was punishable by more than a year.

That's for federal felon-in-possession.

How (generally) do states view federal convictions for felon-in-possession purposes?

It varies by state. Some states look at the actual sentence. Some states, like the federal government, look at the potential sentence. Some states look at whether the offense is designated a felony in that state or the state in which it was committed.

But as a practical matter, as I understand it, state law in this area is preempted, so if you’re a felon in possession under federal law, you’re not allowed to possess a gun anywhere, even if you wouldn’t fall under the state’s definition. By that I mean that the state law can’t trump federal law if it’s less restricted.

This is an area of law that I refused to advise on, except in VA. The clients would invariably ask if they could carry when they were released, and I’d tell them to seek a legal opinion in their home state.

I'm not sure if it was federal or state, but someone here recently who had a felony record was caught with a gun. I think he went back to prison for seven years.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:27 pm Yes. No more gunz. Federal law says if you’re convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year, no gunz for you. I don’t know what the actual max was, but I’m sure the judge who gave the guy more than a year did. And since he got more than a year, we know his offense was punishable by more than a year.

If you are convicted for multiple counts, but each one of those counts carries a maximum of 1 year, would that still fall underneath the "more than one year" requirement? My IANAL brain thinks it would not count because a couple 6 months max convictions could suddenly trigger that but I bow to the experts.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:17 pm But as a practical matter, as I understand it, state law in this area is preempted, so if you’re a felon in possession under federal law, you’re not allowed to possess a gun anywhere, even if you wouldn’t fall under the state’s definition. By that I mean that the state law can’t trump federal law if it’s less restricted.

But also as a practical matter, resources are finite: Sometimes the feebs aren't interested in a "mere" felon-in-possession case.

Jan 6 defendant Joshua Doolin asks court to preclude feds "from introducing at trial any evidence (including text messages) or testimony regarding weapons.. ammunition.. body armor" at Sept trial

Motion shows text messages

(And lists trial date as 2002)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .128.0.pdf

Please tell me the Judge thought that was as funny as I did.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:59 pm You all act like these guys are going to obey laws about giving up their guns.

Be careful. That's exactly the same argument that the pro-gun crowd makes when the subject of outlawing guns comes up. The bad guys won't obey the laws, so only the bad guys will have guns.

One counter argument is that it is not neccessary for police to wait for someone to commit a crime with a gun. The mere possession of the gun is sufficient reason to arrest them. This is true if we banned guns (or certain categories of guns, such as assault weapons) or in the case of a felon-in-possession.

If the convicted felon is found to possess a weapon, that is sufficient grounds to arrest them, whether they committed a crime with the weapon or not. The possession IS the crime.

noblepa wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:48 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:59 pm You all act like these guys are going to obey laws about giving up their guns.

Be careful. That's exactly the same argument that the pro-gun crowd makes when the subject of outlawing guns comes up. The bad guys won't obey the laws, so only the bad guys will have guns.

Wasn't an argument. An observation about these "good guys." Yeah, some of them will get busted for having gunz. Nothing's going to stop them from their addiction.

The thing is, when you can get a gun free with your breakfast cereal, it is a lot easier for a guy who legally can't have a gun to get one anyhow.

If getting a gun legally was a little harder to do, and if we started limiting how many are sold, maybe we can decrease supply and eventually the bad guy with a gun didn't get it with less effort than it takes to buy cough syrup. Over time, it might even be hard for a criminal to actually get a gun. And less likely a criminal in training has an arsenal without bringing a little attention on himself that maybe someone ought to keep an eye on him.

Selling more guns, not less, may be the actual answer.

Making a profit in an industry where the product you are selling never spoils, is very durable, and can last for generations in a marketplace where fewer households actually want that type of product is too difficult. Since the only hope is to sell more of these types of goods is to have a new product like the AR series. These weapons are not great hunting weapons and have huge societal costs, but because it is the attractive (and somewhat fun to fire) recent addition to the personal weapon portfolio they will be protected by huge political donations from the industry to control gun legislation.

An alternative model is to have gun legislation that would actually increase the profits of the gun industry and thereby making it a winnable fight.

Since the only means for the industry to profit is by manufacturing and selling weapons, it is time to make the millions of old weapons obsolete. I’m suggesting something along the lines of the record (ahem) profits made by the music industry when compact discs entered the market and everyone began purchasing CDs to replace their vinyl collections.

If firearms were required to have built in trigger locks that could only be unlocked by code or biometrics (which are really good now) with regulation that firearms taken off of one’s residence had to comply (and favorable insurance rates for not having an obsolete non locked weapon?), there would tremendous demand. Even if after market modifications were made available for the older weapons, there would be great demand.

That’s my dream solution that will never happen (sigh)… haha

A trigger lock with a 10 minute wait time as well - so no heat of the moment mis-use

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-26/ ... /101269024

Donald Trump's original speech after the Capitol riot has been revealed. Here are the words he refused to say

Donald Trump crossed out sentences that distanced him from the rioters who attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

He crossed out lines that said: "I want to be very clear: You do not represent me. You do not represent our movement."

But he left in: "You do not represent our country."

In the original line, "I am outraged and sickened by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem," the word "sickened" is crossed out.

The line, "You belong in jail," was replaced with: "You will pay."

This part of the speech was entirely crossed out in black pen:

"I am directing the Department of Justice to ensure all lawbreakers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We must send a clear message — not with mercy but with JUSTICE. Legal consequences must be swift and firm."

You do not represent me. You do not represent our movement."

By crossing this off, he was honest for once. They did represent him and his "movement."

So... a high-level Capitol riot defendant (accused of bringing tactical vest & baton to Capitol) files court motion arguing the Trump officials who are defying the Jan 6 Committee are also "creating an aura of suspicion" in the mind of prospective jurors in Capitol siege cases

Initial court appearance today at 1pm in Jan 6 case of Dova Winegeart of Oklahoma

US Justice Dept alleges Winegeart is photograpehd "swinging a long wooden pole with what appears to be pointed metal attachments at the window of a door marked as “House of Representatives”

What all the best dressed tourists carry with them.

I initially read that as “swinging ON a long wooden pole.”

I like mine better.

Mark Ponder sentenced to 63 months.