It’s the Law

We are a nation of law, not men. This is the mantra of the people who make law, day after day, century after century. Can we ever tire of hearing we must behave a certain way because it’s the law? Not only is it the law, ignorance of it is no excuse. Since no American home can contain it all in paper volumes, ignorance of the law is a natural fact of life, excuse or not. That which we have and can’t possibly know is never enough because lawmaking and enforcement are lucrative growth industries to benefit a few at the expense of many.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people can only exist on the local level and then only until a “superior” government of the people, by the rich, for the rich, supplants it. It is not ignorance of the law that enslaves us, it is our ignorance of its origins that does so. The rich exploiters of humanity write the laws we live by and have their professional servants transcribe them into the proper jargon. Jargon that makes them difficult or impossible to understand until after one has been charged with a violation that demands professional defense. How convenient for the ever expanding law profession. There appears to be a huge conflict of interest in allowing lawyers to write any laws. They and politicians are the lap dogs of the powerful. Legal guns.

Statute law which is given much more weight than diivine law, traditional common law and natural law; is mostly created by people who profit by controlling the behaviors of their ignorant and busy servants. These rich and powerful people define and control the education of their subjects. An education to convince us all we are accidental beings living lives of accidental circumstance, of no particular value. No master is responsible for anything that happens in global events but servants are responsible for their own compliant behavior. When a servant rebels, the servant is processed through the masters’ just us system and locked in a cage. We call this freedom and justice because our masters tell us it is freedom and justice, from the time we enter their youth indoctrination centers.

Guaranteed a jury of your peers, the definition of peer is any ignorant person who will follow the instructions of some judge. One who knows nothing about the suppression of evidence and criminal behaviors occurring daily in the masters’ courts. The few who discover this fraud become even more angry and rebellious so their punishment becomes a most useful example to others who might not be compliant enough to make life easy for the masters’ administrators. We give the rebels a label to distinguish them from the compliant. We call them criminals. A criminal is any person who violates any rule. This makes life very simple for the masters and their servants. It makes life intolerable for the non compliant rebels who become full of anger and resentment to the point of violence againt their natural enemies, the compliant servants. The victims of violence rhetorically ask, why me? Then they demand the arrest, conviction and punishment of the rebel. The rebel is later released to injure more servants who will demand more punishment. It is such a clever money scheme that not one in a hundred ever sees it as it is.

Terrorist is the name we give to rebels who see the servants of the rich as the enemies within their reach. Rebels attack and destroy them to create fear and reluctance among survivors. We call their victims innocent because they do not receieve show trials of “justice” for their crimes of serving the masters in rebel courts. Until the rebels decided they would rather die before they would be servants of the rich, the masters did not concern their selves. Now the masters have a serious problem because fear prevents servants from working and tithing the rich. However, when you rule the world, labor problems and economic slowdowns work out over time as people starve and kill each other. All is well that ends well. We can observe this process every day in Iraq.

The difference between the servants and the rebels is that servants lock rebels in cages and rebels simply kill servants. Servants are caring. Rebels are barbaric. In truth the rebels are simply too poor to afford the cages and prisoner support servants can afford. Rebels can recruit servants to become rebels but servants cannot recruit rebels to become servants except on rare occasions. While millions of Americans are now locked in cages or were formerly locked in cages, most never wanted to serve the rich in any direct way. Those who have been released and have tried to go straight, a euphamism for serving the rich, have found it extremely difficult to do so. In any event, they have scores to settle with the servants and have much in common with those we call terrorists. As isolated as they are when in cages, they have to admire the rebellion of those called terrorists and that one person can cause destruction far beyond what we might expect of any one person. Our prisons are domestic recruitment pools for terror.

Not far behind prisoners, will be Native, African and Hispanic Americans who have scores to settle with the rich and their obedient servants. The refusal of the masters to compensate these people for the life and property taken from them and their ancestors by the masters over hundreds of years, make natural rebels of them all. Add to them the members of the radical left and right and we have many miilions to carry on the work begun in Oklahoma City. As you wonder about your allegiance to the masters and look around for danger and warning, start thinking like a rebel, just in case. It is not the the goal of the rebels to destroy entire cities, yet. Rather, it is the goal to bankrupt the servants until they too rebel against the masters. Once you start thinking how much money you can cost the enemy, you can become far more creative than any member of Al Qaeda. Even if you have no intention of joining the rebellion, you will be safer and better able to survive the domestic war that began years before Oklahoma City.

The plans to impose martial law in America will work as well as they would in Afghanistan and Iraq. The servants of the rich will become loyal to local warlords. Donald Rumsfeld’s light, fast armies will be far too few to fight globally and domestically. When government returns to conscription to build up their forces, recruits will be slaughtered as they stand in the lines. Millions will leave the U.S. to survive, watch what is happening and form fifth columns to fight with the rebels and against the servants of money, wherever they find them. War again becomes simple to understand. The rich against the poor. The weapons favor the rich. The numbers and strategy favor the poor. Place your bets. Make your plans. The lawless are coming to power. The law won’t save anyone. The old value system and its supporters have to go.

Reducing Gun Crime

Facts and Figures

Gun crime in the UK makes up less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police. Although this is a small statistic, the use of guns leads to severe bodily harm or death, of which there were 455 of these last year.

Punishment

In order to reduce gun crime there are several laws in place to act as punitive and deterrent measures. Possession of an illegal firearm alone, incurs a minimum of 5 years in jail. The use or possession of an air weapon or imitation firearm in public is also now illegal and the manufacture of imitation firearms has become prohibited too. The age at which an air weapon can be purchased has been increased to 17 years of age and some air weapons that can easily be converted into firing weapons have become prohibited. Most of these laws come under the 1996 Violent Crime Reduction Act.

Reducing Supply

Further actions taken to reduce gun crime are to reduce the supply of guns to the UK. According to the Lord Chief Justice, it is because guns are so readily available that there is still gun crime in the UK and we need to tackle this problem more effectively. This can be done by tightening security at UK airports to prevent smuggling past customs and also monitoring parcels that are shipped into the UK.

Gun Culture

A lot of gun crime is associated with gang culture and illegal drug trade and so by addressing these problems there is hope that this will also reduce the use of guns. ‘Connected’ is a government initiative to support communities in standing up against the use of guns in their local areas.

Federal Prohibitions to Gun Possession After a Louisiana Conviction

The Federal Gun Laws: the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, the “Brady Bill,” and the “Lautenberg Amendment”

The United States Congress passed the first pervasive prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which basically made it illegal under federal law-and regardless of individual states’ laws-for felons to possess a gun (or ammunition) under any circumstances. At the time, however, there was no mechanism in place to vet the background of people purchasing firearms, so, although it might have been illegal (under federal law) for someone to purchase or possess a firearm, there was no point-of-sale background check system to prevent a firearms dealer from selling a firearm to a felon, and the legality of the sale was essentially made on the “honor system”-the purchasers simply had to sign a statement that they had not been convicted of a felony offense.

The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 reinforced the ban on felons possessing guns, and it also expanded the definition of “felon” to include anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, regardless of whether the actual crime was classified a felony or misdemeanor under the individual states’ laws.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, often referred to as the Brady Bill, passed in 1993 and was designed to close the “honor system” loophole in the ban on felons purchasing firearms by mandating federal background checks on firearm purchasers and imposing a waiting period on purchases, until the National Instant Criminal Background Check System came online. The Federal Bureau of Investigation maintains this database and reports that over 90% of “Brady background checks” through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone with the gun dealer. In the remaining cases, a potential gun purchaser may have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to approve or deny his application to purchase a firearm, though as a concession to the Second Amendment, if a denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time. This system remains controversial because some lawful purchasers who should not be subject to hindrances are routinely delayed or denied for processing.

Three years later, in 1996, Congress again expanded federal gun control laws by passing what is commonly known as the Lautenberg Amendment (which is not actually in the traditional federal gun laws, but, rather, attached to an appropriations bill), which prohibits people subject to protective or restraining orders from domestic violence, or who have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes involving domestic violence, from possessing firearms.

Confusingly, at least for many potential purchasers, these long-standing federal prohibitions on felons possessing guns are at odds with Louisiana law which allows many felons to possess a firearm immediately, once their sentences are complete and further allows most remaining felons to carry a gun if a certain amount of time (ten years) has passed since completion of sentence. Thus, there are many variations in the exact details of the laws that restrict felons from carrying guns from state to state, and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but, despite the nature of the state law at issue, the bottom line is that federal law always prohibits felons from possessing guns.

What Can You Do to Get Federal “Permission” to Buy or Possess a Firearm if You Have a Louisiana Felony?

Bottom Line Up Front: Unfortunately, nothing is guaranteed, and your options are limited.

“Restoration” of Civil Rights

Theoretically, federal law allows people who have had their rights “restored” to purchase and possess firearms, but, under the federal interpretation of the Louisiana expungement laws, that may prove practically difficult. 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)(B)(ii) say that “[a]ny conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of ” the federal gun ban.

To determine whether someone’s civil right to own a gun has been restored, federal courts “look to the law of the jurisdiction of conviction… and consider the jurisdiction’s entire body of law.” United States v. O’Neal, 180 F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 980 (1999). This means that if a person has a Louisiana felony conviction, the federal courts will look to Louisiana law to determine if his civil rights have been restored. If they have been restored under Louisiana law, then the federal authorities will not be able to prosecute him for being a felon in possession of a gun, and he will pass a “Brady check” when he attempts to purchase a firearm.

The problem is that Louisiana law does not ever expressly “restore” the civil right to own a gun to a felon. The Louisiana felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute (LSA-R.S. 14:95.1) simply bars prosecution for possession if ten years have passed from the completion of sentence. It, arguably, does not actually reinstate the right to possess the firearm. Further, the Louisiana expungement statute specifically does not restore the right to possess a weapon beyond the scope of whatever is allowed in LSA-R.S. 14:95.1. Under federal law, a conviction is only considered expunged (and no longer disqualifying) if it is “removed from the individual’s criminal history record, and there are no legal disabilities or restrictions” other than the fact that it can still be used for sentencing purposes for subsequent convictions, so it is unclear if federal authorities agree that Louisiana’s expungement law technically complies with the federal definition of “expungement.” This issue has not yet been litigated to conclusion in the federal courts, so the usefulness of a Louisiana expungement to restore federal gun rights remains unclear at this time.

Request a “Waiver of Disability” from ATF

An alternative to expungement, at least in theory, is to make application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) to request restoration of your gun rights. The federal gun law banning felons from possessing a firearm was written with special “escape clause” language that could allow deserving individuals who have prior felony convictions to apply to regain their federal rights to own a gun. Under this federal rule, the application is supposed to be granted if “it is established… that the circumstances… and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”

This seems an immanently reasonable approach to allowing reformed offenders to regain their federal gun rights, especially in cases such as those in Louisiana where the state law would allow gun possession for an ex-offender after a period of time. The practical problem with this provision, however, is that, since 1992, Congress has legislatively prohibited ATF from allocating any money from its budget to handle these applications. Accordingly, when anyone submits these applications, ATF cannot act on, review, or grant them. They must simply return the application with an explanation that they cannot process it, due to a lack of available funds. While this seems unfair, it has been litigated to conclusion in the federal courts, and the Supreme Court, in United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002), ruled that an applicant could not force the agency to process the application if Congress has expressly used is “power of the purse strings” to prevent the agency from funding the process.

Gubernatorial Pardon

The only sure method currently available in Louisiana for a restoration of federal gun rights is, ironically, a state “governor’s pardon.” This special type of pardon expressly restores all rights and returns the individual to the position he held, as if he had never been convicted. Governor’s pardons are different from “first-offenders’ pardons,” which occur automatically after completion of sentence.

Traditionally, only a few dozen governor’s pardons are awarded each year. Information on applying for one may be found at the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole.

The Muzzleloader Alternative

There is a healthy debate about whether the federal gun ban for felons applies to “black powder” guns or muzzleloaders, and that is because the federal gun control laws only apply to “firearms and ammunition.” If a muzzleloader is not considered a firearm, then the federal ban may not apply, and, hence, convicted felons could potentially be able to legally purchase a muzzle loader under federal law.

Whether a muzzleloader is considered a firearm depends on the gun itself. Some are “firearms,” and some are not. Using a muzzleloader that is not a firearm is entirely legal for convicted felons in Louisiana, under federal law.

In general, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) exempts certain “antique firearms” from federal gun control laws. These antique firearms typically include any firearm manufactured on or before 1898, or a replica of such a firearm. In addition, muzzle loading rifles, muzzle loading shotguns, and muzzle loading pistols are also considered antique firearms, provided that they use black powder, or a black powder substitute, as opposed to fixed ammunition (cartridges and shells).

However, federal law specifically excludes certain muzzleloaders from being considered antique firearms. This includes firearms which can be converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or a muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition.

So what does that mean for those wishing to purchase a muzzle loader? Basically, as long as the weapon is like one produced before 1898, or it is truly a muzzleloader, then it likely is not considered a “firearm” under federal law. Keep in mind, though, that states may have specific laws covering muzzle loaders which provide even greater restrictions, such as limitations regarding flintlocks, barrel lengths, projectile diameters, and even who may own them.

The ATF has published its own explanation of the muzzleloader exception which follows:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) prohibits felons and certain other persons from possessing or receiving firearms and ammunition (“prohibited persons”). These categories can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and (n). However, federal law does not prohibit these persons from possessing or receiving an antique firearm. The term “antique firearm” means any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898. The definition includes any replica of an antique firearm if it is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or uses rimfire or conventional centerfire ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States, and which is not readily available in ordinary channels of commercial trade.

Further, any muzzle loading rifle, shotgun, or pistol which is designed to use black powder or black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition, is an “antique firearm” unless it (1) incorporates a firearm frame or receiver; (2) is a firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon; or (3) is a muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), (a)(16).

Thus, a muzzle loading weapon that meets the definition of an “antique firearm” is not a firearm and may lawfully be received and possessed by a prohibited person under the GCA. In addition, the GCA defines the term “ammunition” to mean “ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm.” Because an “antique firearm” is not a “firearm,” it is lawful for a prohibited person to receive or possess black powder designed for use in an “antique firearm.” Also, the Federal explosives laws do not make it unlawful for a prohibited person to acquire and possess black powder in quantities not exceeding fifty pounds if it is intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in “antique firearms.” See 18 U.S.C. § 845(a)(5)

By contrast, a prohibited person may not receive or possess black powder firearms that can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof. ATF has classified certain muzzle loading models as firearms. All of these models incorporate the frame or receiver of a firearm that is capable of accepting barrels designed to fire conventional rimfire or centerfire fixed ammunition. These muzzle loading models do not meet the definition of “antique firearm” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16), and are “firearms” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). Furthermore, as firearms, these and similar models, regardless of the barrel installed on the firearm or provided with the firearm, are subject to all provisions of the GCA. Persons who purchase these firearms from licensed dealers are required to fill out a Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473, and are subject to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check. Felons and other prohibited persons may not lawfully receive or possess these firearms or ammunition.

The following is a list of weapons that load from the muzzle and are classified as firearms, not antiques, under the GCA, because they incorporate the frame or receiver of a firearm:

Savage Model 10ML (early, 1st version), Mossberg 500 shotgun with muzzle loading barrel, Remington 870 shotgun with muzzle loading barrel, Mauser 98 rifle with muzzle loading barrel, SKS rifle with muzzle loading barrel, PB sM10 pistol with muzzle loading barrel, H&R/New England Firearm Huntsman, Thompson Center Encore/Contender, and Rossi.50 muzzle loading rifle

This list is not complete and frequently changes. There may be other muzzle loaders also classified as firearms. As noted, any muzzle loading weapon that is built on a firearm frame or receiver falls within the definition of a firearm provided in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

Finally, even though a prohibited person may lawfully possess an antique firearm under federal law, state or local law may classify such weapons as “firearms” subject to regulation. Any person considering acquiring a black powder weapon should contact his or her state Attorney General’s Office to inquire about the laws and possible state or local restrictions. A list of state Attorney General contact numbers may be found at www.naag.org.

CONCLUSION

A Louisiana felony will prevent you from buying or possessing a firearm under federal law, even if you can legally possess the firearm under Louisiana law. There is no absolute way to cure this problem except a governor’s pardon, which is extremely rare.

Traditionally, the federal authorities rarely prosecute felons who attempt to purchase a firearm or who possess a firearm, if the felon is otherwise permitted to possess the firearm under state law, but the federal authorities can and do prosecute some cases. Beware of this.

An expungement may ultimately cure the disability, but the law is unsettled on this issue currently, and you cannot rely on a Louisiana expungement to accomplish this goal. Extensive information about obtaining a Louisiana expungement and related gun rights can be found through the Louisiana Expungement Assistance & Advocacy Center (LEAAC).

If you have a Louisiana felony conviction, and do not have a governor’s pardon, the only guns that you may possess without running afoul of federal laws are true muzzleloaders.

California’s Gun Control Laws and Legislation

California is considered to have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country with approximately 950 firearm laws currently in effect. Supporters of stricter gun laws argue that these laws are necessary to curb crime and enhance safety, while critics of gun control argue that the laws infringe upon the Constitutional right to bear arms afforded to all citizens by the Second Amendment, and that safety is reduced because citizens are less able to use firearms to protect themselves. Because there are very few federal firearms laws, individual states have been left to regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. As a result, state laws vary significantly from state-to-state.

In 2012 alone, no fewer than six bills have been introduced in California that address existing gun laws or create new gun laws. These bills include:

  • Senate Bill 610 – Concealed Handgun Permit Application (in effect since January 2012)
  • Senate Bill 819 – Transfer of Background Check Fees (in effect since January 2012)
  • Assembly Bill 144 – Unloaded Handgun Open Carry Ban (in effect since January 2012)
  • Assembly Bill 809 – Long Gun Registration Law (effective in 2014)
  • Assembly Bill 1527 – Long Gun Open Carry Ban (pending)
  • Senate Bill 427 – Ammunition Registration (vetoed)

Senate Bill 610 states that Gun owners are not required to obtain liability insurance before getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The law also standardizes the application process and does not require an applicant to pay for training courses prior to obtaining a permit. This was the only recent legislation that was applauded by groups who urge less restrictive gun laws.

Senate Bill 819 allows the Department of Justice to access the Dealer Record of Sales (DROS) funds in order to pay for the enforcement of certain gun possession laws. Originally, DROS funds were used only to pay for the administrative costs of obtaining background checks. Critics of this law argue that there will be insufficient DROS funds to fund enforcement.

Gun control advocates supported both Assembly Bill 144 and 809. AB 144 prohibits a person from openly carrying an unloaded handgun in most public places; and is already effective; and AB 809 will become effective on January 1, 2014, and requires the registration of all newly purchased rifles and shotguns. Currently, there is no state law that requires registration of rifles or shotguns, and only new residents of California are required to register handguns within 60 days. Failure to register a handgun is a misdemeanor; however, law enforcement typically will not charge gun owners who comply with the registration law after the 60 days.

In the wake of the recent gun crimes in Arizona and Colorado, Assembly Bill 1527 was recently passed in California and is now awaiting the governor to approve or veto. The bill would prohibit the open carry of long guns, which includes rifles and shotguns. Critics of AB 1527 argue that this is unconstitutional, while supporters argue that this is merely a necessary expansion of AB 144, which now outlaws the carry of open unloaded handguns. Supporters argue that the sight of rifles and shotguns can be frightening and should be prohibited in most public places.

Governor Jerry Brown, who is a gun-owner, vetoed Senate Bill 427, which would have allowed police to collect sales records from ammunition retailers, required retailers to notify the police if they intended to sell ammunition; and prohibited the online and mail order purchase of certain calibers of ammunition. Critics of SB 427 argued that many of the calibers of ammunition that were identified in the law are popular among hunters, and would have an impact on sales.

In general, groups that advocate for gun laws argue that strict gun laws help reduce violence, particularly domestic violence. Advocates point out that states with strict gun laws have lower incidences of suicides and crimes of passion that result in homicide. In 2010, 8,775 out of almost 13,000 murders were committed with firearms. Opponents of gun laws, however, argue that the right to bear arms must not be infringed upon, and that law abiding citizens do not need restrictions; while non law-abiding gun owners will not be deterred from criminal activity regardless of gun laws. A 2010 survey estimates that approximately 300 million firearms are owned by civilians in the United States, which is 50% of all guns in the world. It is estimated that there are 88 guns per 100 U.S. residents, the highest per capita in the world. In comparison, the second highest gun ownership per capital is Serbia, with 58 guns per 100 residents.

The debate regarding gun control extends beyond California and the United States. The United Nations has tried to create an international treaty to regulate global arms trades, which is estimated at $60 billion every year. The treaty would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of firearms and to regulate firearms brokers. It would also require countries to determine whether exported weapons would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws, or be used by terrorists or organized crime. Presently, there are 192 member States of the United Nations.

Search Results