Prohibited person cannot TOUCH guns or ammo?

[HiredGoon]

I've seen a couple recent threads where it is stated that it is illegal for a prohibited person to TOUCH guns or ammo.

Is there a statute that actually uses the word TOUCH, or is the word POSSESSION being interpreted that way?

(a) Offense defined.--
(1) A person who has been convicted of an offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or without this Commonwealth, regardless of the length of sentence or whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c) shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth.

[Curmudgeon]

How does one successfully distinguish between 'touch' and 'possess' or 'have within one's control', especially given the rabidly anti-gun position of the bulk of the legal system?


In a strictly legal sense, I have never seen the word 'touch' used. But in a practical sense? When attempting to provide advice intended to spare someone from a world of grief? Yeah, I can see that.

[F16vipers]

I had an interesting argument with someone once about this issue. A friend of mine, on probation at the time, was worried that if the cops ever stopped us and I was CCW that the cop could confiscate my firearm for analysis to see if his fingerprints were on it.

I wasn't worried about it. I don't see how an officer could justify confiscating a weapon to see if someone's fingerprints were on it unless a 'crime' was actually witnessed. Furthermore, how could it be proven that the person in question handled the firearm AFTER they were prohibited from doing so?

One of the lawyers out there should chime in and let us know what you think...

[GunLawyer001]

I had an interesting argument with someone once about this issue. A friend of mine, on probation at the time, was worried that if the cops ever stopped us and I was CCW that the cop could confiscate my firearm for analysis to see if his fingerprints were on it.

I wasn't worried about it. I don't see how an officer could justify confiscating a weapon to see if someone's fingerprints were on it unless a 'crime' was actually witnessed. Furthermore, how could it be proven that the person in question handled the firearm AFTER they were prohibited from doing so?

One of the lawyers out there should chime in and let us know what you think...

First, on the issue of a prohibited person "touching" guns or ammo, I guess the question is "how close do you need to get to a rabid dog"? We know that possession is unlawful, so unless you have a curiosity about conditions inside our prisons, and a lot of extra cash that you feel should be donated to our valiant legal practitioners, I'd stay clear.

As for police confiscating guns, the sad reality is that our courts have essentially bent over and spread in the name of "officer safety". They allow cops to do entirely too much in the way of detention, searches, and confiscations (temporary or more enduring). Cops who take your gun away for the duration of an encounter will generally face no adverse consequences, if the encounter was at all justifiable.

So if you're pulled over for an expired sticker, or speeding, or failure to wear a seatbelt, or for using a cell phone, you may reasonably expect the possibility of being disarmed. That means the gun goes from your hands to the cop's possession, and cops have no problem with calling in the make, model & serial number to the stolen property database, and the "record of sale" database. So if they had the means to check for prints, I suppose they could, although I seriously doubt that the seizure would occur for that purpose. And I've never heard of it happening.

But if someone knows that the friend is prohibited, and they see him in possession, then that is RAS of a crime all by itself, and a motivated cop could certainly look for supporting evidence, like fingerprints on the gun, or powder residue on his hands.

Bottom line, anyone who is prohibited should either avoid guns and ammo (and stun guns, too), or else seek to have their rights restored if they fall into one of the eligible categories.

[RHGregory3]

Amidst the legal jargon I believe you can pretty much substitute "touch" for "use"

I am not a lawyer, I would reccomend a concrete answer from GunLawyer, however I would understand it to be that a person who is prohibited cannot touch a firearm. If you pick up a gun, it's possessing it. If you fire a gun, it would seem to logically be in "use"

I have a friend with a crazy ex who got a protection from abuse order on him on total allegation and no fact - if I take him shooting and they find out about it he'd be in deep trouble I'd imagine. This is my opinion, not fact - I stress again.

Also the friend on probation?. Nothing in his record would give any officer a right to confiscate or even examine your weapon. He'd need evidence of a crime involving your weapon and a warrant to do that one would strongly strongly imagine. Tell your friend he's paranoid :-D (maybe not?)

Best of luck guys!

[F16vipers]

Also the friend on probation?. Nothing in his record would give any officer a right to confiscate or even examine your weapon. He'd need evidence of a crime involving your weapon and a warrant to do that one would strongly strongly imagine. Tell your friend he's paranoid :-D (maybe not?)

That's exactly what I told him haha! The charges against him were ridiculous anyway...

He called 911 because his uncle came home, obviously on something, and passed out with his eyes rolling in the back of his head. A cop and an ambulence show up and his uncle magically snaps out of his state. So the cop questions my buddy if he was the one who called IN FRONT OF HIS UNCLE so my buddy says no because he didn't want his uncle to know he was the one who called. Didn't think officers questioned people together but this cop was a dick.

After the cop decided my buddy was a 'lier' it went downhill from there. After all of this and the legal shit he had to go through for making a legit call to 911 he was pretty paranoid for a while and I could understand why.

Funny thing is...his uncle had 2 DUIs against him and never spent a day in jail. Gotta love the system some days...