Skip to comments.Records show vet denied right to buy gun over 1971 pot charge was never convicted
Posted on 09/01/2013 2:09:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ron Kelly didnt do it, even if he thought he did.
Kelly, who lives in Tomball, was outraged a few months ago when he failed a computerized background check required to buy a gun over a minor pot charge from 1971.
At the time of the rejection, he insisted that hed been convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony, and there was no justification for denying a right that he defended with a 20-year career in the Army.
This is a portion of a June 25, 2013 letter from the FBI to Ron Kelly letting him know about what appeared to be a criminal record blocking him from being able to buy a gun.
Following a July article in the Houston Chronicle, he spoke with politicians and lawyers and hoped for some resolution, perhaps some sort of waiver, that would one day allow him to be a gun owner.
The FBI, which runs the database that was used to reject Kelly, also reached out to try and sort out his situation.....
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.chron.com ...
even if he did do it, it was 40 years ago and they’re still denying him his civil rights and it’s an absolute crock of shiite. One of the smartest things we pro-second amendment types could ever do would be to get a federal law passed that guarantees the RKBA despite minor drug offenses after a reasonable period of time has passed without further drug offenses.
Something isn’t right here. Was he charged under Federal or Local/State law? I’ve heard that here in Georgia, one can seek a pardon letter from the Governor for things like this.
At least from my understanding the NICS check is used by the state to determine whether to allow the purchase or not. Essentially, the NICS check being a backstop for the state. Am I wrong here? Full of it?
If they aren’t a violent offender they should retain all rights.
After that, they can use anything at all to deny individuals the right to purchase - or possess - firearms. Got traffic tickets? Belong to a proscribed political group? Post on the FreeRepublic?
No firearms for you, citizen.
If we’re safe enough letting them roam free in society, then we’re safe enough letting them protect themselves. If they can’t be trusted with a gun, they need to be locked up.
Should child molesters be allowed to unify and then have sway over politicians? thieves? I don’t know.
If we as a society get to a point where criminals are a worrisome voting block then we are doomed anyway.
how can you get pardoned for something you were never convicted of doing?
apparently several of our serving and past presidents would be unable to legally purchase a gun but can be the president of the US and command the world’s greatest nucleart force
Well, this is the actual law. Any misdemeanor with a possible sentence of more than 2 years is a disqualifier. It’s wrong, of course, but it’s codified.
Yeah, sure. First it was enacted “to prevent felons, drug addicts, and mental cases from buying handguns”. Then it was expanded to include long guns. Then it was expanded to include domestic violence suspects. Then further to include misdemeanors “that would be felonies today”.
They’re boiling the frog and we’re the frog. Do you imagine that voted for any of this?
Didn’t say it was right; did say it was codified.
Ok then this will get sorted out. Of course, this sort of s**t is why we strenuously opposed background checks to begin with, no?
So codified means everything is dandy? Bet the orders to Dachau were codified nicely.
And exactly which clause in the Constitution grants the Government the power to deny a person their inalienable rights?
If a violent offender is no longer incarcerated, do you claim the government should deny them knives, baseball bats, cars, containers of gasoline and the like?
One of the worst mass-murders in American history was committed with a container of gasoline.
My neighbor recently got drunk (at home, alone) and said the wrong thing on the phone to his now-ex-wife (they had just split up and he was staying at the house, which was sold and was to be vacated the next week). Don't know what exactly he said, but he had his guns out and cleaning them (found out later). Anyway...I was away from home that evening and I got a call from the Sheriff's office that they wanted me to turn off my outside lights, as they were performing a "welfare check" on one of my neighbors. Well, that neighbor lived across the street and a Deputy was crouched in my driveway for a half hour until he came outside (replayed the whole incident on my cctv). They took him into custody, went in the house and seized his guns (3 or 4 handguns). He told me about all this a few days later, horribly embarrassed by it all.
I pointed out one thing: That he should petition the Sheriff's office on the exact wording in the Action Report by the Deputies, as regardless exactly what he said to start the whole thing, it's what's in that report that matters that could be used to take away his CHL and perhaps prevent him from owning a gun again.
Pertinent language at issue currently in Oregon Law (ORS 166.293):
(2) Notwithstanding ORS 166.291 (1), and subject to review as provided in subsection (5) of this section, a sheriff may deny a concealed handgun license if the sheriff has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant's mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant's past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.
(3)(a) Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a concealed handgun license is cause for revoking a concealed handgun license.
Exactly what his wife answered when asked about his character, his average mental state and whether there were any weapons in the house is language in the report to be concerned about in this case, particularly of any psychological review/questionnaire performed by the Sheriff's Dept. after-action. At the time he didn't care, but I think I made my point to both him at the time and here to you all...particularly related to moves to expand denial of weapons to veterans to the general public at large. IMHO, the language applied to veterans currently for denial of weapons-ownership/licensing would prevent some (if not many) former/retired LEO from owning a weapon at all. Technically wording in DHS documents could be applied to most Freepers on the basis of their language in posts and ideology for denial of 2A rights...if we stick our heads in the sand...