• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ben Wallace should have attended an OC seminar; it could have saved his a$$ :(

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Well , yes the laws maybe a little hard to grasp for some, but being drunk and haveing a gun in the front seat while driving is IMHO pretty straight forward.:idea:

Although Im inclimed to agree with you, a couple things come to mind.

He too has the RKBA, and until he steps acrossa line, into the rights of another, he shouldnt be charged with anything. - The punishment doesnt fit the crime. - Perhaps he unloaded the weapon prior to drinking. - He probably thought he was complying with the law, and at least went out of his way to make the effort. - And at least he wasnt stark raving drunk, with the gun loaded and on his lap, maybe shooting into the air or at street signs.

IMO the firearm should have been a non issue in this case. If I were a cop, I would have looked the other way as long as the gun was his.
 

fozzy71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
921
Location
Roseville, Michigan, USA

Nexela

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
6
Location
Flint, Michigan, United States
The law says designed for storage of firearms not manufactured for storage of firearms. Who is to say he didn't design his backpack to hold a pistol. Granted this is just a small part of the bigger picture.



Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
well, we will have to agree to disagree.

a felon does not and should not have equal rights.
This was not always the case in this country. It used to be, when you served your time, and were released, you got all of your rights restored. Didn't matter what your crime was, as long as you served your time, your rights came back the moment you left the prison.

well, we will have to agree to disagree.
my understanding of felons, is that they cannot own firearms (even BB guns) or ammunition or have it in their homes. i have heard that they cannot even enter a home that has firearms in it (i am not sure of this, but i like it).
Nope. They just can't legally own MODERN firearms. They can own less than modern firearms, such as cap and ball revolvers. I think the sticky part has to do with owning the black powder. As to the rest, if their spouse is felony conviction free, they don't lose their rights just because they're married to a felon.
 
Last edited:

WARCHILD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,768
Location
Corunna, Michigan, USA
As to the rest, if their spouse is felony conviction free, they don't lose their rights just because they're married to a felon.


Possibly not Al. If this ruling applies.

Felon in possession of a firearm
US v. Balanga, 109 F.3d 1299 (8th Cir. 1997).
Another instructive case is US v. Balanga, 109 F.3d 1299 (8th Cir. 1997). Balanga argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for being in possession of a .22 caliber rifle and ammunition found in his basement. Balanga argued that he did not possess a key to his basement door's padlock while another person stored a rifle and ammunition in Balanga's basement. Balanga admitted that he knew of the .22 caliber rifle and the ammunition that was stored in his basement, but argued that because he did not have a key to the basement, he did not have access to the rifle and the ammunition, and therefore did not possess them.

The court disagreed, finding that to convict Balanga of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the government had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he "'exercised ownership, dominion or control over the firearms or dominion over the premises'" where the firearms were stored. The court ruled that, "In this case the jury could have reasonably concluded that Balanga failed to refute the normal inference of dominion over his own home. While there was some testimony at trial to support Balanga's assertion that he did not have a key to his own basement during the period in question, there was also evidence that Balanga in fact retained a key."

So, the mere presence of a firearm in the home of a convicted felon (where he has "dominion") will raise a presumption that he is in possession of it in violation of the law. The burden shifts to the prohibited person to prove in court that he had no access whatsoever to the firearm. From the cases, this appears to be a very heavy burden.

Finally, note also that the wife who allows her convicted felon husband to possess the firearm is also guilty of a federal felony under 18 USC 922(d). Transfers of firearms to any prohibited persons is unlawful under federal law.

Just sayin'
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
As to the rest, if their spouse is felony conviction free, they don't lose their rights just because they're married to a felon.


Possibly not Al. If this ruling applies.

Felon in possession of a firearm
US v. Balanga, 109 F.3d 1299 (8th Cir. 1997).
Another instructive case is US v. Balanga, 109 F.3d 1299 (8th Cir. 1997). Balanga argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for being in possession of a .22 caliber rifle and ammunition found in his basement. Balanga argued that he did not possess a key to his basement door's padlock while another person stored a rifle and ammunition in Balanga's basement. Balanga admitted that he knew of the .22 caliber rifle and the ammunition that was stored in his basement, but argued that because he did not have a key to the basement, he did not have access to the rifle and the ammunition, and therefore did not possess them.

The court disagreed, finding that to convict Balanga of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the government had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he "'exercised ownership, dominion or control over the firearms or dominion over the premises'" where the firearms were stored. The court ruled that, "In this case the jury could have reasonably concluded that Balanga failed to refute the normal inference of dominion over his own home. While there was some testimony at trial to support Balanga's assertion that he did not have a key to his own basement during the period in question, there was also evidence that Balanga in fact retained a key."

So, the mere presence of a firearm in the home of a convicted felon (where he has "dominion") will raise a presumption that he is in possession of it in violation of the law. The burden shifts to the prohibited person to prove in court that he had no access whatsoever to the firearm. From the cases, this appears to be a very heavy burden.

Finally, note also that the wife who allows her convicted felon husband to possess the firearm is also guilty of a federal felony under 18 USC 922(d). Transfers of firearms to any prohibited persons is unlawful under federal law.

Just sayin'
The way I read it, if there had not been any evidence that he retained a key to the basement, he wouldn't have been found guilty. If he kept a key, or had ready access to a key, then he was being really stupid. Personally, if my wife had a felony record, all my guns would be locked up on some fashion, and I'd be the only one with a key. And it would be secure, for HER legal protection more than anything else.

Frankly though, I think any non-violent felony ex-con should get all their rights restored upon completion of their sentence. Yes, they made a mistake, but they paid the price. That should be the end of it. I'm not saying give them a CPL. But their normal, rights should be restored.
 

WARCHILD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,768
Location
Corunna, Michigan, USA
I only cited to point out a very heavy burden of proof for non possession/access is shifted to the felon.
Having a relative who is a convicted felon (drug charge); I have researched this before. Of the agencies I have contacted, ALL say, if it is in the home; they are considered to have access and are in violation.

To err on the side of caution is cheaper than a lawyer.

JMO
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
I only cited to point out a very heavy burden of proof for non possession/access is shifted to the felon.
Having a relative who is a convicted felon (drug charge); I have researched this before. Of the agencies I have contacted, ALL say, if it is in the home; they are considered to have access and are in violation.

To err on the side of caution is cheaper than a lawyer.

JMO

For an interesting tidbit, see the wiki below a Duane Chapman, "Dog" the bounty hunter. Being a convicted felon, his family/team is prohibited from possessing/carrying firearms when he is nearby. i.e. Constructive possession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Chapman
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
For an interesting tidbit, see the wiki below a Duane Chapman, "Dog" the bounty hunter. Being a convicted felon, his family/team is prohibited from possessing/carrying firearms when he is nearby. i.e. Constructive possession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Chapman

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_possession

However, a person who makes it impossible to take possession of another's property has taken actual possession, not constructive possession. For example, if someone chains someone else's car to an immovable object, he or she has taken possession of it even though he or she has not moved it.
 
Top