Ok, we all know that it is illegal for a convicted felon to have in their possession a fire arm. So here is the case I am looking at.

Police do a drug raid on a suspect that they have raided several times before without ever finding any evidence. On the last raid, they find a old non working rifle, barrel is not even connected and I understand there was no firing pin.

Again the state can not make its drug case so they turn the rifle over to the feds and get them to press charges.


What is everyone's opinion, would a rifle that is not in firing condition be a violation of the federal law.

Yes, because that firearm can easily be repaired by a gunsmith. When we repair a firearm a background check is not needed to shelf the gun or to return it to the person who brought it into our shop. The only requirement in returning a repaired firearm is that the person who brought the firearm in for repair is the person who must pick the firearm up.

A non working gun should be a chargeable crime for a felon. Yes, it can be fixed and put back into action so I think there was a crime here Chuck.

Ok, we all know that it is illegal for a convicted felon to have in their possession a fire arm. So here is the case I am looking at.

Police do a drug raid on a suspect that they have raided several times before without ever finding any evidence. On the last raid, they find a old non working rifle, barrel is not even connected and I understand there was no firing pin.

Again the state can not make its drug case so they turn the rifle over to the feds and get them to press charges.


What is everyone's opinion, would a rifle that is not in firing condition be a violation of the federal law.


My vote is yes - I believe there can be NO firearms in the residence and the law does not specify working or non-working.

Hello Padre:

Sure it CAN be fixed... Just like he CAN go buy a new one... But it ISN'T fixed, and won't fire. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it's NOT a firearm - it's a hunk of scrap metal.

excon

I'm going to agree with excon. If it wasn't in working order at the time of the arrest it wasn't a firearm since it was incapable of "firing a projectile using an explosive" which my friendly DEA agent taught me is the definition of a firearm.

I'm going to agree with excon. If it wasn't in working order at the time of the arrest it wasn't a firearm since it was incapable of "firing a projectile using an explosive" which my friendly DEA agent taught me is the definition of a firearm.



The US Code says:

"[a convicted felon who] possesses a firearm, as such term is defined in section 1. 921 of this title, [is] in violation of Federal law, [and] violates a condition of supervised release prohibiting the defendant from possessing a firearm;"

USC Section 921 defines a firearm as:

"(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm."

I think a non-working firearm "could be converted" and, therefore, is a violation. The "readily converted" part, of course, will be the legal issue.

A firearm is a firearm whether it is in working condition. It is against the law for a felon to be in possession of a firearm. The law does not have a loophole stating that a felon can be in possession of a non-working firearm.

The only firearm a felon can possess is a black powder gun. If this firearm was not black powder, then he is in violation of the law.

Remember, I own a gunshop and am married to a gunsmith. ;) ;)

Not only did I ask my husband about this, but many of the local police spend their time there (we don't have a donut shop in our town. :p )

Hello again, J:

As an owner of a gun shop, you know your stuff. And, knowing you, I'm sure your husband is a fine fellow. I also think YOUR local police are fine examples of the law. They're immune from all the nasty things I have to say about cops...

That being said, you guys wouldn't be where I'd look to find the law ifin it was ME who was arrested.

Of course, YOU don't see a loophole. That's why we have lawyers..

I think Judy is right. It's going to turn on the definition of "readily". I would think "readily" would mean putting it together on the spot so that it could fire. I don't think "readily" means taking it to a gun shop and waiting a few days.

Of course, I HAVE been wrong in court before...

excon

I know you don't like cops excon, we have some crooked ones here too. Though I am speaking from experience as my husband has had to be an expert witness in several cases.

Judy did in fact pull up the law I was looking for. I wanted to rate her, but had to spread the love.

Again, a firearm is a firearm no matter the working condition and felons are not allowed possession of a firearm.

First thing I would look into is the legal definition of "weapon". A gun may be a weapon, but is a decommissioned gun a weapon?

Secondly, I would look into whether the law is constitutional.

Hello tom:

A man after my own heart...

Since the Constitution guarantees the right to possess firearms, I don't think they can take that right away - even if you're a felon.

excon

First thing I would look into is the legal definition of "weapon". A gun may be a weapon, but is a decomissioned gun a weapon?

Secondly, I would look into whether the law is constitutional.



The Code doesn't say weapon - it says firearm and the definition of a firearm is: ""(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive"

It's been challenged before and probably will be again - look up the case law - and it has always held.

Would be an interesting challenge - while you're at, see if someone wants to challenge income tax.

The Code doesn't say weapon - it says firearm and the definition of a firearm is: ""(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive"

It's been challenged before and probably will be again - look up the case law - and it has always held.

Would be an interesting challenge - while you're at, see if someone wants to challenge income tax.


*cough*


BTW, I'm not saying that this has any prospect of success... I am saying that if I were looking for a loophole, that's likely where I would start. I'm not qualified in any American court, so would not seek to give legal advice.

A weapon can be considered a knife, baseball bat... etc.

But only one can expel a projectile. That would be a firearm.

*cough*



Please comment instead of "coughing" at me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll admit it.

We still don't agree - the definition of firearm is "any weapon capable of firing" and not the other way around. The definition of weapon is something along the lines of an instrument which can injure or destroy.

Therefore, this translates into a firearm is "any instrument which can injure or destroy." Then the word "instrument" could be challenged.

Not saying this couldn't be challenged; I just think you are reading the definition in reverse.

Yea of course people who own guns would have something to say about someone else with one. Freedom is not a luxury it's a right. You can't take a right away

Water is not Kool Aid, unless of course you get water and sugar... a fire arm has to have the ability of firing.. how is antique firearm defined in the statutes?