# Firearms & Felons



## bogwalker (Aug 5, 2002)

Hey...well here goes with a question that has been bothering some of us for quite awhile.For years it has been everyones belief that if a person has a felony conviction he or she cannot use modern day firearms or vote.Is this true or not?Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated,thanks.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

For the most part, a person that has been convicted of a felony may not use or possess any firearm unless they have had their firearm rights restored. It is impossible to give a 100% correct answer though unless all the circumstances are know. The best advice is for an individual to contact their local prosecuting attorney


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

Here is more info on this subject from the MSP web site....


Q. Is it possible to have my felony record from 20 years ago cleared so I can purchase a firearm?

A. MCL 780.621 allows a person to apply to have their felony conviction set-aside if it is their only conviction. If/when the set-aside is granted, you would be eligible to purchase or possess a firearm. MCL 750.224f If the felony conviction was "non-specified", you would be eligible to possess a firearm eight years after the date of conviction or confinement and 3 years after release from probation or parole, whichever is the later date, if that date is before July 1, 2001. If the date is after July 1, 2001, only a set-aside, expungement, or pardon would allow you to possess a firearm. If the felony conviction was "specified", you must either have been granted a restoration of your firearms rights by your local county gun board prior to July 1, 2001, or have a set-aside, expungement or pardon. A "specified" felony is one in which 1 or more of following circumstances exist: An element of that felony is the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. An element of that felony is the unlawful manufacture, possession, importation, exportation, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance. An element of that felony is the unlawful possession or distribution of a firearm. An element of that felony is the unlawful use of an explosive. The felony is burglary of an occupied dwelling, or breaking and entering an occupied dwelling, or arson.


----------



## slayer (Jun 1, 2002)

Ok would a bow & arrow be a firearm ??


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

A bow & arrow is NOT a firearm. A crossbow is NOT a firearm.


----------



## Fishcapades (Mar 18, 2003)

Just another *@&^@^ up law to thank Granholm for. Not all people who have felonys deserve to loose their firearm rights. Just because they have a felony means they have no right to protect their selfs? That is complete crap.

Just goes to show you how messed up this world is. What will happen next?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Fishcapades... it has nothing to do with the Governor. Been like that for decades and it is also federal law.


----------



## Fishcapades (Mar 18, 2003)

So your saying its right? so many petty things are crimes these days its sickning. It really pisses me off knowing that if some one has comitted a non specified felony (where as a firearm or no violence was used) has no right to protect his self and family in his own home. Can you truthfully tell me that you belive this Law is fair?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Not going to argue with you about it, it's the law and has been for a long time. We are not talking about petty crimes, we are talking about felonies. But to answer your question, yes, I agree with it and do believe its fair. You have your opinion, I have mine.


----------



## Fishcapades (Mar 18, 2003)

Figures. Your right you do have your own opinion, But then again your a law enforcement officer your opinion will be biased.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Is it unfair to ask if you have a 'petty' felony on your record?

ferg....
if so - just don't reply - i'm only wondering to clear my prespective of where your coming from - thanks.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Fishcapades said:


> Figures. Your right you do have your own opinion, But then again your a law enforcement officer your opinion will be biased.


Fishcapades, if you feel this strongly about gun rights, what are you doing to further your cause? I will tell you, verbally beating up someone who does not make policy is rather pointless. If you feel this strongley, then you should be in the politics section of this site daily as many of us are fighting the good fight; you should join a gun rights organization (or three); you should be writing your Congressman and Senator regularly; basically, you should be active politically. This stuff is not really fun but is necessary to keep our Republic free. Also, Second Amendment abuses are not the only abuses against our Constitution that are happening. The First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are basically under assault at the Federal Level by members of both parties and the tenth Amendment has been basically ignored.

As for the issue at hand. First, I would start by cautioning you that how you argue your point reflects on all of us. Secondly, I believe the Officers reference to the Federal Law was aimed at the 1968 Gun Control Act. However, there are people, such as yourself, who feel there is not a need to remove a felons firearms priviledge because if that felon were truely dangerous he/she would be in prison . Right?

If your interested in getting active in this Second Amendment fight than PM me and maybe I can help get you started in the right direction.


----------



## sporty (Jun 24, 2004)

What about domestic assault, isn't that also a no no pertaining to possessing a firearm


----------



## Fishcapades (Mar 18, 2003)

I have to run to school but I will respond more to this thread when I return. Unless some one feels the need to lock it.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

sporty said:


> What about domestic assault, isn't that also a no no pertaining to possessing a firearm


You are correct sporty, although that is federal law, not state law.

There are ways for some convicted felons to gain their firearm rights back if they wish to pursue that which is why one should contact their local prosecuting attorney. I also agree with that too.

As for locking it, unless someone starts personally attacking another there will be no reason to lock it.


----------



## fishing addict (Mar 15, 2003)

sporty said:


> What about domestic assault, isn't that also a no no pertaining to possessing a firearm


"Yes",even mis-demeanor domestic assault takes away gun privelidges.

Fishcapades;
We have a really good thing going here,being able to ask a C.O. legal question's,and getting an honest description of what the law allows.As Boehr,volunteers his time to do this for us.He doesn't get any pay,and usually responds much quicker than if you try to get it answered directly from the DNR.

It's not his fault that the laws were written as they are
.
PLEASE,don't verbally assault him,and make it where he doesn't want to do us this BIG FAVOR anymore.


----------



## trouttime (Mar 30, 2004)

fishing addict said:


> "Yes",even mis-demeanor domestic assault takes away gun privelidges.
> 
> Fishcapades;
> We have a really good thing going here,being able to ask a C.O. legal question's,and getting an honest description of what the law allows.As Boehr,volunteers his time to do this for us.He doesn't get any pay,and usually responds much quicker than if you try to get it answered directly from the DNR.
> ...


  I agree lets debate it in the sound off forum, I have found answers to many of my questions by searching this forum, thanks boehr.


----------



## slayer (Jun 1, 2002)

trouttime said:


> I agree lets debate it in the sound off forum, I have found answers to many of my questions by searching this forum, thanks boehr.


Ya thanks for your help Boehr


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

In regards to fairness: don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Or in this case don't become a felon if you want to keep your firearm rights.

But I will agree that the change in law to making a domestic assault a fire arm losing offense is a bit much. It would be awfully easy for a vengeful spouse to falsely claim assault against her other half and forever take away their rights.

Even more unfair was the retroactive nature of the law. Many LEOs that had a domestic assault, even 20 years ago, lost their jobs because of that change.


----------



## Fishcapades (Mar 18, 2003)

You Know after recieving two emails from so called sportsmen from this site I am done with this topic. Just because I have a felony on my record DOSE NOT mean I AM A BAD person. So if some people like to send rude e-mails maybe they should just leave this site.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Fishcapades said:


> You Know after recieving two emails from so called sportsmen from this site I am done with this topic. Just because I have a felony on my record DOSE NOT mean I AM A BAD person. So if some people like to send rude e-mails maybe they should just leave this site.


Your refering to some private email, I hope.

The reason for my post/question was simple, you attacked Ray about having a one side LEO's opinion on this issue - while all the time your opinion on this subject is also one sided, your side. I was only attempting to put the debate into prespective.

Nothing personal here - In fact I have young nephew that has a 'felony' on his record that we are trying get reduced for this very reason. 

He wrote a bad check, not on purpose, he took his mothers check book, not understanding how they worked and wrote a check that bounced. The person that took the check refused to 'see the forest' and wanted to make an example out of my nephew, so they did. Now he has to deal with this felony thing. 

Does this make him a 'bad person' certainly not, should he be alowed to hunt, certainly. I don't know you or your situation, but I'm sure there a lot of people with simple felonies that should be able to carry.

ferg....


----------



## trouttime (Mar 30, 2004)

Fishcapades said:


> You Know after recieving two emails from so called sportsmen from this site I am done with this topic. Just because I have a felony on my record DOSE NOT mean I AM A BAD person. So if some people like to send rude e-mails maybe they should just leave this site.


fishcapades,
There are rude people EVERYWHERE! With 10,000+ people viewing these boards I wouldnt take it too personal


----------



## tdejong302 (Nov 28, 2004)

I didn't know that he was from the DNR however that explains some of his previous responses to my questions. I do appreciate his input into how the DNR trains their staff in figuring out how laws should be applied or determined. 

Totally seperate issue. two 10 pt. whitetail lock horns on private property and cannot seperate. Do youallow the Dnr to come onto your property to cut off antlers to save the deer from dieing. You ask them if you can safe the deer from further needless suffering and you are told no. You must let nature run its course. However the DNR will gladly come onto your property to cut them loose what do you do? 

I posed this question to about 30 people at work. I thought easy answer. You cut off the antlers and allow two magestic animals live on. However I was in the monority. Grandmas/ pas, alot of people who I thought would be against seeing two animals suffer seemed to think differnt then I. 

So I guess the main point I am making is maybe the DNr needs some public relations improvement. I expect a complete bashing over this thought and will receive some I'm for sure. However ask your self one question before you bash me. Do most people you know that hunt/fish or trap speak highly of the DNR. If they don't WHy. 

As I stated before I appeciate the DNR.'s input on how they enforce or interput the law because I don't want to get hassled anymore then you do. 

I know contact my legislator to change what I don't like. Easy to say but hard to change. :sad:


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

Fishcapades said:


> You Know after recieving two emails from so called sportsmen from this site I am done with this topic. Just because I have a felony on my record DOSE NOT mean I AM A BAD person. So if some people like to send rude e-mails maybe they should just leave this site.


I am bummed out that someone would do such a thing...I don't think sending negative email is a "sporting" thing to do. If you cant be forthright and discuss the issues in publid then maybe it shouldn't be said!!! Fishcapades if the email is not in keeping with good tastes maybe you should forward a copy to one of the mods!

Boehr-Sorry to be debating an off topic subject in your law forum!


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I agree with what you stated about the e-mails NEMichsportsman but I believe this topic has now run its course.


----------

