can prohibited persons inherit regulated firearms?

[Vile Shadow]

Ok. His only legal way to do this may be to apply for expungement of his record.

Anybody know how much time has to elapse before that can happen?

I thought it was 10 yrs.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

Well no. Expungement is only necessary if you want it totally wiped off the record. A pardon will fully restore rights. But I'd rather not get too far off topic. I'm trying to find PROOF, if it exists, to refute his claims that he's not prohibited from "unregulated" firearms.

Everyone says he would be, but nothing to refute this restoration of rights, and the associated federal codes concerning that.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Ok, gotcha. Expungement may be easier to get than a pardon though, at least at the moment.

For a non-reg he just needs the federal form, which doesn't go into the level of detail as the state. Is 2nd deg assault a felony?

 

[MDMOUNTAINEER]

Ok, gotcha. Expungement may be easier to get than a pardon though, at least at the moment.

For a non-reg he just needs the federal form, which doesn't go into the level of detail as the state. Is 2nd deg assault a felony?

I don't think you can get that expunged and a pardon for a violent crime is nearly impossible. I have a friend with a second degree assault conviction from a bar fight 17 years ago. He went through the steps for a pardon 5 years ago, they notified him 3 months ago that it was declined.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

No. It's a midemeanor. Max sentence is 6 years though, which by the Feds definition is a disqualifying crime.

Just trying to get a definitive answer here. Seems like it can almost go both ways.

 

[MDMOUNTAINEER]

Ok, gotcha. Expungement may be easier to get than a pardon though, at least at the moment.

For a non-reg he just needs the federal form, which doesn't go into the level of detail as the state. Is 2nd deg assault a felony?

It is a crime of violence AND penalty exceeding 2 years confinement.

 

[awptickes]

This brings up an interesting hypothetical:

Say your friend is taking his H-BAR ar-15 to some land with a friend, but the case he keeps it in requires him to separate the lower and upper receiver.

Does he possess a regulated rifle receiver when the H-BAR upper is removed?


This ties into the insanity of the H-BAR AR rifles, but uses the logic the ATF uses with an RDIAS.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

interesting indeed.

currently looking for solid evidence that this "restoration of rights" nonsense isnt legit.

everyone keeps saying "this is the way it is", and generally i agree, and believe you, but there's nothing yet that ive seen to refute the MD restoration of rights + FED "shall not be considered conviction" bits. just want to see the documentation for it.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

healthy bump for curiosity

 

[ericoak]

Illegal by MD and Federal Laws, BUT:

The 2A is a natural right all human beings have, whether their government allows it or not. Governments can only infringe on that right. But you can still end up in jail so that is up to you.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

Illegal by MD and Federal Laws

Please provide source, it may have gotten lost on the last page. But MD bans you from regulated only after your restoration of rights (which in MD is automatic after completion of your sentence/probation). Fed says your conviction "shall not be considered a conviction" if you've had your rights restored.

Trying to find the rebuttal to this. Can't find anything solid.

 

[Lex Armarum]

Friend, you're asking for a legal opinion for free. If you or your friend wants a legal opinion, ask a lawyer (me, yes it costs money). Otherwise, let your friend role the dice and see where it lands him.

 

[BlackBart]

Friend, you're asking for a legal opinion for free. If you or your friend wants a legal opinion, ask a lawyer (me, yes it costs money). Otherwise, let your friend role the dice and see where it lands him.

Probably some GOOD advice. Rusty reminds me of this old commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq3wL8ZXjBU

 

[ericoak]

Please provide source, it may have gotten lost on the last page. But MD bans you from regulated only after your restoration of rights (which in MD is automatic after completion of your sentence/probation). Fed says your conviction "shall not be considered a conviction" if you've had your rights restored.

Trying to find the rebuttal to this. Can't find anything solid.

If you become a prohibited person you have to surrender your guns to MSP.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

I don't see how hard it could be for someone to know SOMETHING about this? I can't believe it hasn't come up before. Does seriously no one know about the existence of the clause in the fed documents about restoration of rights and what they consider a conviction?

Rusty, while good advice, I would like for myself and the person in question to remain anonymous for fairly obvious reasons. I'm not asking for legal advice from a lawyer, I'm asking people who love digging up state and fed codes to play bench lawyer and debate. Everyone here seems to love doing that anyway. But when something tricky comes up everyone is silent?

Again, I'd generally agree that this person is still prohibited, and there must be some clause somewhere that would point to that. I'm simply asking for help finding it.

 

[Merlin]

let me start off by saying that i am not a prohibited person nor am i trying to sidestep any laws.

however, i have a friend who IS prohibited, and is determined to find a way to acquire regulated firearms. i do not believe he is or ever will be a threat to anyone, and i think he really just wants a regulated gun "because he cant" kind of thing.

he says that he cannot purchase any legally due to the laws, but that he is free to inherit them from family when the family member dies. im just curious, is this true? is it lawful for a family member to knowingly leave regulated firearms to a prohibit persons? or is it lawful for a prohibited person to receive regulated firearms via inheritance?

Being a prohibited person, means just that. Your prohibited from owning firearms. So it doesn't matter if they found a gun walking down the street one day, it was given to them as a gift at their b-day party, or old uncle Waldo left it to them in his will. Prohibited means prohibited.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

Merlin, thank you for your reply. Please read the last few pages for me. The topic at hand is currently different than it was originally.

 

[T-Man]

interesting indeed.

currently looking for solid evidence that this "restoration of rights" nonsense isnt legit.

everyone keeps saying "this is the way it is", and generally i agree, and believe you, but there's nothing yet that ive seen to refute the MD restoration of rights + FED "shall not be considered conviction" bits. just want to see the documentation for it.

Q: You appear to have a clear answer to your own question and are just trying to disprove your admittedly stubborn and previously in trouble friend's theory -- that doesn't seem like that will end well.

I'm not asking for legal advice from a lawyer, I'm asking people who love digging up state and fed codes to play bench lawyer and debate. Everyone here seems to love doing that anyway. But when something tricky comes up everyone is silent?

At this point you are asking for legal advice on an issue that would possibly result in felony charges for the friend. The response of some guy on the internet told me yes/no does not hold water when faced with the ATF etc. IF he really wants to do what appears to be a stupid thing based upon his interpretation of the UC Code, he should spend the money and get some help and not hope that we get it right.

Note -- I say appears to be stupid as I don't know the answer but all signs point to prohibited meaning prohibited.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

im not trying AT ALL, to gain any kind of advice to help this individual feel better about making a purchase, or attempting to, etc. mearly to provide some "proof" that his line of reasoning is incorrect. hes stuck on this, and thinks its a valid "loophole". im trying to disprove that to discourage something bad happening. in no way is this going to be used as a defence or be construed at all as liable legal advice.

kind of like, if you think someone might drink and drive, to me its not appropriate to just let that person do it, and deal with the consequences, rather prevent it from happening in the first place.

if theres no documentation to refute the clause in the fed or MD documentation ive provided, then thats all you need to say.

 

[T-Man]

I wasn't saying that you were. Just noting that you appear to be attempting to teach a pig to sing as the old quote goes while dealing with some issues that if misread, as it appears that he is doing, have very serious consequences.