Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Records show vet denied right to buy gun over 1971 pot charge was never convicted
The Houston Chronicle's Narco Confidential ^ | August 30, 2013 | Dane Schiller

Posted on 09/01/2013 2:09:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Ron Kelly didn’t 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 he’d 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; US: North Carolina; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; marijuana; secondamendment; veterans; warondrugs
Figures.
1 posted on 09/01/2013 2:09:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


2 posted on 09/01/2013 2:21:35 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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?


3 posted on 09/01/2013 2:30:04 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC one

If they aren’t a violent offender they should retain all rights.


4 posted on 09/01/2013 2:41:14 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This is only the canary in the mine: the antigun folks are pushing for universal background checks so the net can be fully closed.

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.

5 posted on 09/01/2013 3:43:41 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

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.


6 posted on 09/01/2013 4:22:55 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Should child molesters be allowed to unify and then have sway over politicians? thieves? I don’t know.


7 posted on 09/01/2013 4:45:24 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Criminal. Government.
8 posted on 09/01/2013 5:03:42 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Amen.


9 posted on 09/01/2013 5:05:14 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RC one
If there was any justice in this world Child molesters would be executed and therefore would have to crawl out of hell to unify and have sway over politicians.

If we as a society get to a point where criminals are a worrisome voting block then we are doomed anyway.

10 posted on 09/01/2013 5:08:53 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

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


11 posted on 09/01/2013 5:12:16 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


12 posted on 09/01/2013 5:16:08 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
He was NEVER convicted of any crime! Read the entire article. The prosecutor dropped the charges.
13 posted on 09/01/2013 5:34:05 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

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?


14 posted on 09/01/2013 5:41:26 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

Didn’t say it was right; did say it was codified.


15 posted on 09/01/2013 5:54:38 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

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?


16 posted on 09/01/2013 5:58:37 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

So codified means everything is dandy? Bet the orders to Dachau were codified nicely.


17 posted on 09/01/2013 6:07:09 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
If they aren’t a violent offender they should retain all rights.

And exactly which clause in the Constitution grants the Government the power to deny a person their inalienable rights?

18 posted on 09/01/2013 6:10:49 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

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.


19 posted on 09/01/2013 6:16:17 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail
"This is only the canary in the mine: the antigun folks are pushing for universal background checks so the net can be fully closed. "

Probably stating the obvious that you, I and others knowledgeable have a clue as to how bad it will be:

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...

20 posted on 09/01/2013 6:39:37 AM PDT by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It’s my recollection that possession was a felony in Texas back then. It was long before I moved here, but I seem to recall talk about it.


21 posted on 09/01/2013 6:39:51 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail
Didn't say the codification made it right. I happen to disagree with the law. The only slender, minuscule and vanishingly tiny encouragement I can extract out of this pitiful situation is that they, at the bare minimum, are not violating their own codes.

See, because that's next.

22 posted on 09/01/2013 6:41:01 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869; Lazamataz
Your story is right on point: these extra powers have oozed all through our many governments and your friend was probably an inch from losing his life as well as any future right to bear arms - since our law enforcement officers have become antiterrorist commandos and we're the "terrorists". We haven't voted this stuff in, we haven't consented to lose our constitutional rights, haven't agreed to prosecution without due process, yet here we are.

If we just sit still and hope all of this blows over, it becomes irreversible.

23 posted on 09/01/2013 6:52:21 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
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?

I'd guess that these were state charges, not federal. Basic local police stuff.

Herein lies the problem with the NICS background checks - these older criminal case records were not all retained using the same system; there were as many subtly different formats as there are county courthouses. I'll bet data from these old records was collated by some courthouse records room employee using a template. I wonder how many other people are marked down as "convicted" improperly?

24 posted on 09/01/2013 6:59:17 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Requiring a background check converts an inalienable right into a government granted privilege. Any background check is unconstitutional. Now ask what clause allows banning possession of a plant.


25 posted on 09/01/2013 7:05:12 AM PDT by SpeakerToAnimals (I hope to earn a name in battle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

He should just go buy a gun privately. By the time this all gets sorted out he will die of old age.


26 posted on 09/01/2013 8:41:47 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

He was merely arrested, never charged or convicted of ANYTHING! Can you believe it?


27 posted on 09/01/2013 9:21:13 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I aim to raise a million plus for Gov. Palin. What'll you do?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Durus; RC one

Send People Like Michael Jackson To Lifetime Halfway Houses In Alaska by Alan Srout:
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/may/article120.html

Gubernatorial Candidate Wants To Create ‘Pedophile Island’ To Banish Sex Offenders
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/05/pedophile_island.php


28 posted on 09/01/2013 9:24:45 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I aim to raise a million plus for Gov. Palin. What'll you do?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

He was only arrested. He never went to trial and was never convicted of any crime. Read it again.


29 posted on 09/01/2013 9:26:06 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I aim to raise a million plus for Gov. Palin. What'll you do?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

For a long time it was, then it was changed, then it was changed back, then back to misdemeanor again. Depends on the numbber of drug warriors in the legislature and how many believe the DEA’s “10 times stronger” bullpuckey.


30 posted on 09/01/2013 10:44:54 AM PDT by jimt (Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Just a starting point.

If they served their time their rights should be restored the


31 posted on 09/01/2013 11:49:52 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RC one

Shoot even felonies (though I’m sure no one would be willing to tackle that for political reasons). If someone has “paid their debt” and demonstrated decent discipline outside of prison for a few years, what’s the problem? Dems think they should be allowed to VOTE, which is far more dangerous.


32 posted on 09/01/2013 1:19:33 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Of course, this sort of s**t is why we strenuously opposed background checks to begin with, no?

Absolutely YES!!!!

33 posted on 09/01/2013 5:40:26 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson