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

[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.....

[PAR35]

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.

[Lazamataz]

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.

[Chainmail]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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?

[SpeakerToAnimals]

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.

[Georgia Girl 2]

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

[2ndDivisionVet]

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

[2ndDivisionVet]

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

[2ndDivisionVet]

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

[jimt]

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.

[Vendome]

Just a starting point.

If they served their time their rights should be restored the

[Still Thinking]

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.

[2nd amendment mama]

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

Absolutely YES!!!!