100%!!! never, EVER plead guilty to anything... millions for defense, not a penny in tribute
Posted on 07/11/2013 2:59:00 PM PDT by Altariel
Ron Kelly, a 20-year Army veteran, recently tried to buy a .22-caliber rifle at the Wal-Mart in Tomball, Texas. He was turned away because he failed the FBI background check. He appealed the rejection, and last month he got a Justice Department letter explaining that he was legally disqualified from owning guns, after handling them in defense of his country for two decades, because of a 42-year-old marijuana conviction. As a high school student in Durham, North Carolina, he had been caught with a small amount of pot and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession, receiving a sentence of probation because he was a first-time offender. The probation lasted a year, but according to the Justice Department the ensuing loss of Kelly's Second Amendment rights lasts a lifetime. "I am ashamed of the way my government has treated me," Kelly told The Houston Chronicle. "The government may have the greatest of intentions with the [law], but they messed it up."
Kelly's disqualification may in fact be unjustified under current law, which bars gun sales to people convicted of felonies but not misdemeanors (except for misdemeanors involving domestic violence). Unless the feds are treating what North Carolina called a misdemeanor as a felony for some reason, Kelly's pot conviction should not be covered by that provision. The only other disqualifier that seems possibly relevant is the one for anybody who is "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," but more than a 1971 conviction for possession should be required to demonstrate that Kelly falls into that category.
Even if it turns out that Kelly is allowed to own a gun under current law, the case illustrates the folly of the absurdly broad criteria used to strip people of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, since it clearly would be illegal to sell Kelly a gun if he still occasionally smoked pot, whether for medical or recreational purposes, or if he had been caught with enough marijuana to be charged with a felony four decades ago. "Better" background checks can only mean more injustices like this.
[Thanks to Allen St. Pierre for the tip.]
Do you need a background check to buy a .22 in Texas?
I had a conviction when I was a juvenile but it has never stopped me from purchasing a weapon. I even went into the Corps with this conviction.
The lesson? Never plead guilty to ANYTHING. Make them prosecute you, wasting their time and money.
And never, ever talk to any “mental health professional”, even at a cocktail party!
Since when does a misdemeanor conviction affect 2nd Amendment or voting rights? Since when has it been a FedMob law? I thought those circumstances were covered by state laws. In fact I think he should have appealed to his state for a return of his rights.
Ok he was denied over a 42 year old conviction because of weed. Then shouldn’t that apply to ODumbo for cocaine use in his college years too - disqualified to be President?
I believe Texas Fossil still runs the Texas ping list.
I am not familiar with the applicable laws in that state and so defer to a Freeper with greater expertise.
Texas Fossil: Would you or a Freeper on your list please answer the question: “Do you need a background check to buy a .22 in Texas?”
You need to fill out Form 4473 no matter where you are.
He was denied by NCIS
This is obviously messed up. But with the current Department of “Justice” and BATFEIEIO, it’s not surprising.
TC
100%!!! never, EVER plead guilty to anything... millions for defense, not a penny in tribute
something smells in this article. My friend was quite the hell raiser in his youth. I know for a fact he had been convicted a few times for possession. I took him out last month and he bought a mosin-nagant and passed his background check.
(Catch 22)
Yet using cocaine qualifies O to shoot missiles.
Was your friend a veteran? If not, that may be the deciding factor.
Perhaps the fact that the man denied his rights in this account *is* an army veteran is the true “red flag”?
It certainly pegs him as a dissident. We’re supposed to lie quietly and let the FedMob aggressively beat our heads on the sidewalk and afterwards tell everyone we deserved it.
Otherwise you are guilty of Murder#2.
Or worse, you’re a closet Creepy Ass Cracka and more raciss dan a Klan man runnin’ a linen supply biz.
I believe that’s the way it is in every state due to federal laws.
Just damn.
I have a friend who recently found that he can’t hunt in Wisconsin due to the Lautenberg amendment. It was a shock to him. To make a long story short, he stopped his drunk girlfriend, now his wife, from driving home from a wedding by taking her keys - forceablly.
He plead down, obviously not down enough, he is now banned from owning guns in Wisconsin.My friend has hunted all his life.
Agree. Popped during his high school days? That should have been a juvenile conviction for a misdemeanor offense. Accordingly, the slate wipes clean at age 18, and shouldn’t even come up on an NCIC background query. I suspect he may have incorrectly answered Question 12 (c) of ATF Form 4473 by stating “yes.” Or, the same for question 12 (e).
No he is not. If I were forced to guess I would say that 42 years ago possession in NC was a felony, but he was a kid so got a slap on the wrist. But it was still marked as a felony for purpose of record keeping and never changed when the law did.
It’s 1966 or 1967. My Big Brother has just returned from Viet Nam. 101st Air Cav, 82nd Airborne. Purple Heart, received for injuries in the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley.
I’m like 14 or 15, and I tell him that I have been honing my Sharpshooting skills with a BB gun. But, I’m out of BB’s.
We hoof it down to Sears on Rte 3A in Woburn, MA, to buy some BB’s. My brother is wearing his uniform - with Jump Boots, numerous combat ribbons and Sharpshooter pins. He was home on leave and didn’t bring many articles of clothing.
At Sears, they wouldn’t sell either of us BB’s, because my Big Brother, was not yet 21.
It all depends on where you live, I guess, and the gun\anti gun culture that exists.
Here in SC, if my brother had attempted this, he would have gotten all the ammo he needed.
Plus, a steak dinner...
why would g the record change?
These guys?
Nah, he’s just lysdexic like me....
(Abject apologies if Ouderkirk is a “she!”)
Kelly's disqualification may in fact be unjustified under current law, which bars gun sales to people convicted of felonies but not misdemeanors (except for misdemeanors involving domestic violence). Unless the feds are treating what North Carolina called a misdemeanor as a felony for some reason, Kelly's pot conviction should not be covered by that provision.
ah. Yes I’m actually ignorant on this. Maybe some of you keyboard lawyers can tell me if you are charged with a felony and later the state changes the law to downgrade it to a lesser punishment level, does your official record reflect the change? Also I just looked it up and under NC law over 1.5 grams for personal use is STILL A FELONY.. so.. depends on how much he got busted for i guess. So if he was 18, got busted for 1.6 grams.. i guess there is your felony.. that’s crap.
This sort of denial happens every once in awhile because of differences in the definition of misdemeanor between several states and the federal government and the fact that the Federal prohibition applies *NOT* to misdemeanors but rather crimes punishable by more than 1 year imprisonment. Many states have, or had, misdemeanors punishable by more than 1 year in prison that trigger the federal prohibition; Maryland, New York, Georgia and Florida just to name a few I am aware of. It is BS and could and should be changed at the Federal level but they hope to gradually move all of us into a prohibited category so they will take no action.
You should note well that the exact prohibition of the law is the purchase of a weapon from a FFL. It does not prohibit ownership or possession of the weapon by a non-felon. This guy could purchase a weapon in a face to face private transaction, except in those states, like California that require a check for every transaction and is why they want to do that at the Federal level. They call it the gun show loophole but it has nothing to do with gun shows and everything to do with disarming the public.
right.. if he had more than 1.5grams under NC law that is a Felony.
So the article is entirely wrong!?!
Just having a little fun. :)
Pretty soon the Justice Department will try disqualifying citizens for a traffic ticket.
i meant history did not change-it was against the law when he did it and a new law does not change that . Legally- I have no idea
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.
“If you’re happy and you know it,
clank your chains (CLANK, CLANK)...”
You know the tune. :{)
“Do you need a background check to buy a .22 in Texas?”
If you buy from a Federally licensed dealer instead of a private party.
I saw the switched letter when I hit post and it was too late
I figured as much. I was just trying to joke around. :)
no no no. I was only saying that there IS a felony level for personal possession in NC. I was only speculating that perhaps he unwittingly plead to that level. I read the article and took it to mean that he plead to possession. The reporter then looked up possession in NC and saw that it had levels that are not felonies and couldn’t figure out why this would be considered one. I was SPECULATING that PERHAPS it was somehow recorded as the over 1.5 gram felony. I did not mean to imply i had any information outside of this article.
Currently, according to tbe FBI, medical marijuana use disqualifies gun purchases. Is he still considered an illegal drug user because of the old conviction?
It’s very possible that the rationale behind this is more about blocking access to someone more likely to Fight Back Against Tyranny, and not pot.
This poor citizen is in need of some pro bono citizen heavy duty support. We are 3/4 of the way down that slippery slope, if this is allowed to stand.
What's next? A single isolated DUI while a teenager?
This affects pretty much 95% of the American citizenry, and is clearly an arbitrary and capricious policy. This regime seems to be really a runaway with stupid moves.
The reasonable man, if he still exists, would conclude the prohibition being applied refers to both convictions and felonies. And even these must be subject to the statute of limitations.
Did Sandy Burglar ever serve time for stealing national documents? Was he even charged and convicted?
Does he own a gun? ?
Kelly's disqualification may in fact be unjustified under current law, which bars gun sales to people convicted of felonies but not misdemeanors (except for misdemeanors involving domestic violence). Unless the feds are treating what North Carolina called a misdemeanor as a felony for some reason, Kelly's pot conviction should not be covered by that provision.
As to your other point about what constitutes a felony for pot possession I think it's quite possible that NC law has changed in the last 42 years.
Depends. Do you think that a criminal poseur pretending to be president of the U.S. is as dangerous to the Republic as a veteran with a grass citation 32 years ago?
After 40 years, if it was a felony back then and he has has a clean record since then, he should apply for a pardon. That would clear the recrd where an expugement would not do the job. In today’s political climate, he might get one for simple possession.
The article states that it was a misdemeanor.
NCIS????
I don't think that will work. I seem to recall a judge ruling that a even a dismissal after deferred adjudication still counts against you when it comes to buying a gun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.