Fed Court Denies Navy Veteran From Owning Gun Due To 1968 Misdemeanor

[Philbert]

I disagree that it's a loophole, but I admit to not having the first idea why the law (18 USC 922) was written the way it was -- perhaps GL can shed some light on this peculiarity. MD may not have deemed that to be a sufficient crime to bar ownership when they passed their law(s), but their counterparts in Congress felt otherwise. I'm not saying the present law is a good thing so much as I'm saying that what MD intended doesn't matter when it comes to Federal law.

An interesting argument would come about if MD specifically stated that the crime was not a prohibitor nor was it intended to be (ie, for whatever MD's version of the UFA is, there is text specifically excluding this crime from the list of prohibitors), but Federal law did restrict on this basis. MD says it's ok to own, Federal law says it's not -- fight it out in the courts to see who wins.



Agreed on both cases. Open-ended sentencing makes no sense to me whatsoever, but I'm open to other thoughts from people who know better than I do. And, I'm certainly open to him getting pardoned if he qualifies and can effectively plead his case to the Governor (or whomever it is in MD that does these).

I think the most likely explanation is that MD's statute was old, and judges had never sentenced people to life in prison for a fist fight, so it never got amended. Then 1968 happened and any crime without a max sentence of under 2 years was suddenly a prohibitor.

That's why I called it a loophole, because I don't think either the Maryland or the federal legislators intended for this to happen. There probably aren't that many statutes in the US with unlimited punishment for minor offenses.

[GunLawyer001]

I think the most likely explanation is that MD's statute was old, and judges had never sentenced people to life in prison for a fist fight, so it never got amended. Then 1968 happened and any crime without a max sentence of under 2 years was suddenly a prohibitor.

That's why I called it a loophole, because I don't think either the Maryland or the federal legislators intended for this to happen. There probably aren't that many statutes in the US with unlimited punishment for minor offenses.

Prior to comprehensive amendments of Pa's Crimes Code in the early 1970's, lots of crimes gave judges wide discretion in sentencing. Shoplifting a pack of gum was lumped in with car theft, and the max penalty for both was the same. By splitting a lot of crimes out into separate statutes, the Legislature made the max penalty more closely fit the particular sub-category.

That's one reason why PA's UFA has a provision for a grant of relief for prohibitors that were punishable by over 2 years at the time, but are no longer so. State relief under that provision allows Federal relief as well, despite the neutering of ATF and the Justice Dept in granting any relief.

[tsafa]

A lack of a background check still wouldn't alleviate someone of being prohibited via Due Process.

The problem is what laws make people prohibited.

I agree. The system is ridicules and should be terminated. It hurts more good people then stops bad people.

[Philbert]

Prior to comprehensive amendments of Pa's Crimes Code in the early 1970's, lots of crimes gave judges wide discretion in sentencing. Shoplifting a pack of gum was lumped in with car theft, and the max penalty for both was the same. By splitting a lot of crimes out into separate statutes, the Legislature made the max penalty more closely fit the particular sub-category.

That's one reason why PA's UFA has a provision for a grant of relief for prohibitors that were punishable by over 2 years at the time, but are no longer so. State relief under that provision allows Federal relief as well, despite the neutering of ATF and the Justice Dept in granting any relief.

Thanks for the information. That puts the GCA's prohibition standards in a rather different light.

[GunLawyer001]

I agree. The system is ridicules and should be terminated. It hurts more good people then stops bad people.

Well....the prohibitors are over-broad, that's for sure. The 302 commitment in particular grants authority to random doctors to strip your gun rights away for life, based on little more than your mom saying that she's really worried about how depressed you are since your dog died and your girlfriend left and you got the clap.

But in general, if our justice system is going to be recycling people who we all know are incapable or unwilling to obey any law that inconveniences them, and those people will be able to drive the same streets and walk into the same gun shops and mingle with the law-abiding, and we KNOW for sure from experience that criminal re-offend, almost every time, then we have a choice to make:
(1) We allow bad people to arm themselves and victimize the law-abiding using the same firepower that the law-abiding can own, and nobody will testify against criminals because there will be nothing stopping the criminals from stopping at a gun shop on the way from the jail to the witness's home, or
(2) We ban all guns for all citizens, in a vain attempt to keep the bad folks unarmed, or
(3) We try our best to set up gates where the good people pass and the bad people are stopped. Right now, that's kind of the option we're going with, at least for FFL sales. For private sales, it's still illegal for the prohibited person to get a gun, and maybe that means that they will be more careful than they would be if it was perfectly legal to strap on a hogleg 5 minutes after being processed out of the prison. Maybe. But Option 3 is the one that's most acceptable to the most people, especially the law-abiding people.

We have some options for restoring lost rights, in some cases. It's not perfect, but every option has some serious consequences, and we've apparently ruled out the idea of life sentences for all repeat offenders. So bad people will always be walking free amongst us.