[JRWnTN]

When I read the initial report here, I hoped against hope that it was another internet hoax.

Perhaps an ATF investigation into whether there has been a violation of the prohibitation against a felon possessing firearms might get the Board's attention.

Also, on Harlon Carter, wasn't his conviction overturned on appeal, and charges were eventually dropped?

 

[JRWnTN]

So S&W still has a director who cannot legally handle one of its products. Interesting.

 

[JRWnTN]

"Possession" is a pretty broad concept under the federal statutes. It basically means to exercise dominion or control over a firearm. Physically holding one would likely be enough to at least get an indictment, if not a conviction. The government does not have to prove the defendant had actual possession. Felons have been convicted of unlawful possession when the firearm was under a car seat, in a closet, etc.

Under the federal statute, the firearm must have been in interstate commerce. Perhaps the federal law wouldn't apply to a firearm before it was shipped from its state of origin, so maybe he could handle a new one on the factory floor.

As to having his civil rights restored, good question. I would have thought S&W would have mentioned this when the story first came to light. But as a public relations problem, I don't think it matters.

 

[JRWnTN]

I still think it would be a real stretch (or incredibly chickensh**) to attempt to proseute on the grounds of merely touching and while I agree that statutes are broad I think most judges would laugh that one out of court.

Don't underestimate the ability of some prosecutors to stretch the legal baloney to the limit. I'm aware of a federal prosecution involving possession of a single cartridge (possession of ammunition is also prohibited for felons).

Most US Attorneys have enough serious crime to keep them busy, without seeing just how far they can to go to find a federal offense.

 

[JRWnTN]

An older lawyer was commenting on the state of society and told me that you don't want your banker to be a gambler, your minister to be a pervert or your doctor to be a drunkard.

I'll add that you don't want the head of your gun company to be a convicted felon.

 

[JRWnTN]

One can now be a "prohibited person" without much effort, given the ease with which an unhappy ex-significant other can obtain an order of protection.

 

[JRWnTN]

Re: Rights Restoration...

That is a good question.
Wasn't it congress under Clinton that prohibted the restoration of rights?

The concept of prohibited possessor didn't come around until the '68 GCA, correct?

If so, was it retroactive? (Like the Violence Against Women Act)

Has this ever been fought?

Just some thoughts that have come to mind.

The federal restoration process stopped being funded in late 1992 (during first Bush administration), mostly at the urging of Sen. Ted Kennedy. The Supreme Court unaminously said that someone seeking relief must first go through the administrative process, before obtaining judicial review, so essentially there is no federal restoration process.

There are some cases in the lower federal courts where the prohibitions of the GCA '68 have been applied to persons convicted of felonies before it was enacted. I don't think the Supreme Court has ever decided the issue.