Federal Felon in Possession of a Firearm and Texas Felon in Possession of a Firearm Laws 

The U.S. Supreme Court decides what laws infringe on the 2nd Amendment. More importantly, right now the Court is changing its prior positions on gun laws in America. It started with the Bruen case last year. See the opinion below. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf This case changed how trial and appellate courts analyze gun rights. It has already had a significant impact on other cases. For example, the 5th circuit reversed a 922g(8) gun conviction based on the Bruen case earlier this year. In that 5th Circuit case, the defendant Zachey Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and dragged her back to the car. He later told her that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Because of this, a state judge issued a protective order against Rahimi that banned him from possessing a gun. A few months later, police searched Rahimi's home because they suspected he was involved in several shootings. They found a gun, a rifle, and bullets. As a result, the feds charged him with a 922g(8) crime, i.e., possessing a gun while subject to a protective order. The Fifth Circuit reversed based on the Bruen case. However, the Supreme Court granted cert. www.supremecourt.gov/qp/22-00915qp.pdf This means they will review the case and see if the conviction should be reinstated or not. Based on these facts, it's going to be a tough case for Rahimi to win. His conduct is to the extreme. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should give us more insight on how to look at gun cases to see if they infringe on the 2nd Amendment. For more information, check out the scotus blog post below. www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/justices-take-up-major-second-amendment-dispute/

Gov./ political manipulation aside... bad boys need to be humbled... NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

When u sign that contract giving up your 2A right and 4A right. STOP signing these contracts

Because they don't believe what it says in the first place and don't mind being criminals if they can make it law. If any law violates the constitution then it is null and void.

The problem is, these gun cases are brought by straight up dirt bags who are filing bullshit challenges and getting denied. This sets precedent that is NOT in our favor.

Hello blackpowderpapa. Thanks for the reply. You are correct about curio or antique firearms. Below is a link with more information. faq.sll.texas.gov/questions/42782

It is still federally illegal!

My concern with the old revolvers is if they can easily switch out the cylinder for conversion which makes the gun illegal for felons, does that matter if a felon doesnt switch out cylinders would it still be legal? The wording in the law surrounding this confuses me leaving me to believe basically felons can only possess truly muzzle loading rifles. Am I wrong? I can't find a list of black powder curios acceptable by atf for felons in Texas.

@@JackMeoff-by1uv why would that concern you? It's not like if somebody wants to do anything wrong they're going to use an old ass revolver 🤦 you can buy guns on the street 24/7 any kind you want! Criminals do not care about the law and are not going to switch a damn black powder revolver to take cartridges genius!

@@JackMeoff-by1uv that is a belief that lots of felons have, but it is absolutely incorrect. It does not matter if it can be converted to the cylinder. The law is very clear on this. It has to do with a set of rifles that were able to convert the breach to make them automatic. It has nothing to do with the revolvers.the wording does not include the changing of a cylinder. Now if you do change the cylinder it becomes illegal. But as long as you're carrying it with a black powder cylinder, you are perfectly within the law.. I know it's very confusing but they could have never made that law as you can buy a pre-1899 revolver that holds cartridges right now and it would be perfectly legal for you to carry. The day the 1862 came out you could purchase a cartridge cylinder with it even back then. This is the reason the laws are written not to include the cylinder in the definition. I know it is very confusing but I hope it helps you.

Enjoyed the talk. Thanks for calling. Good luck.

Thanks for watching. Glad the information was helpful.

You can possess a firearm and purchase you never lost your 2nd amendment rights deferred adjudication is not a guilty conviction if you complete it, you were never convicted for it once you do your probation time the case is dropped or disposed look this up

This fact pattern is so rare, that I have not dealt with it. Not sure the answer to this one. But take a look at this link. It may answer your question: faq.sll.texas.gov/questions/42811

I had a felony conviction in 1996. In 2013, I dug through my case records and found that the way my probation was terminated actually qualified me for clemency. I went to a store, tried to buy a gun, and was denied. I filed an appeal and submitted my documents and my appeal was successful. I now am able to buy guns andI hold a LTC.

Unfortunately, 922g bans felons for life from possessing a firearm. However, the Supreme Court is revisiting its 2nd Amendment case law. They will decide a case in this upcoming term that will help answer your question. The opinion should come out sometime next year. Keep an eye out for it. (The case is United States vs Rahimi--it will be a big case when it drops.)

@@cortezdefense Ok, noted.....and again, thank you very much for the response!

It was my first OUI

Hi Chris. This is a new one for me. The first question I have is who denied you the firearm? Was is because of an FBI background check? Or was it the state of Massachusetts? If you were denied a firearm because you failed an FBI/NICS background check, then you can appeal the denial to the FBI in writing. (But note--you cannot appeal a delay in the firearm purchase.) If Massachusetts denied you the gun buy, then you will need to direct your questions, challenges, or appeals to the state agency that denied you the gun buy. At any rate, once you figure out the reason for the denial, then you can decide if the denial was a mistake or legit. You will want to get that question answered first before you try to buy a gun. Otherwise, you may get yourself into trouble. I am including links below to hopefully get you a more detailed answer to your question. Good luck and thanks for reaching out. guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/background-checks www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/need-an-fbi-service-or-more-information/nics/national-instant-criminal-background-check-system-nics-appeals-vaf

@@cortezdefense I live in Texas now, NICS denied me and I appealed but they insisted that I am prohibited since the maximum sentence for first time OUI is of up to 2 1/2 years, the half year screwed me because had it been just 2 years max I wouldn’t fall Into that prohibition category. It was my first time OUI 18 years ago, it’s a none violent misdemeanor. I challenged the NICS denial but they couldn’t nullify the decision I believe this to be a violation of my 2A rights since I’m not a convicted felon or violent misdemeanor, I believe that under the Bruen guidelines it’s unconstitutional. Texas allows me to have guns and Massachusetts allowed me to have what they call and FID card which allows the hood to posses none high capacity rifles and shotguns, but federally I’d be braking the law if I had guns in either state which make no sense , but I do understand preemptive law give federal government power over states . What’s the point of the state restoring a right of the federal government can still prosecute a person? Like Marihuana, it’s legal in Massachusetts but federally it’s a schedule 1 drug so people in Massachusetts can still get federally prosecuted! Yet you don’t see them busting down dispensaries, I don’t get it honestly. If there’s anything I can do to fight this violations of my rights point me in the right directing please and thanks .

@@Young_Lord556 Yes--I understand why you are upset. There is lots of conflicts between Federal and state laws. Probably you need to hire a Second Amendment lawyer to file suit in Federal Court. That's your best option. Good luck.

@@cortezdefense thanks brother ! God bless you

The Supreme Court is taking a new look at 2nd Amendment cases. It will decide US v. Rahimi next term. The opinion in that case may help answer your question. Sorry I can't give you a better response. www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-rahimi/

I am not sure I followed your question.

Thank you for the feedback. Glad the info is helpful.

This happens all the time. Two people can be charged for possession of one thing such as drugs or a gun. It happens often during trafic stops or searches of homes or apartments. The key facts to a possession case--whether it is actual or constructive possession--are knowledge and control. Did the person know about the gun or drugs? And did he have control over the contraband. If the answer to both questions is yes, then the person is in possession of the gun or drugs.

Hi Ranger Grinch. Looks like 18 usc 241 and 242 are federal criminal statutes. This means federal prosecutors use this law to file criminal charges against people. In other words, private citizens are not able to file criminal charges against others or the government. (Note--the response below assumes you are in Texas. If you are not--then check with the law in your state for remedies.) However, if there is an error in either your Texas or FBI criminal record that is preventing you from getting a licence to carry or to purchase a firearm, then you may want to challenge your criminal history records with both Texas DPS and the FBI. Below are links with more information. www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing/faq/eligibility-faqs www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks#Challenge-of%20an%20Identity%20History%20Summary www.dps.texas.gov/section/crime-records-service/criminal-history-error-resolution If this doesn't work, then you may want to try filing a civil suit against Texas DPS, the FBI, or both to confirm that you are eligible to buy a gun--assuming that you are. Unfortunately, this is outside my practice area. For that reason, I recommend you consult with a civil attorney that handles gun cases to get the best answer for your case. Thanks for your comment. Hope you are able to get the issue fixed.

@@cortezdefense 18 usc 1983 seems like what I'd need. A lawyer was talking about 18 usc 241. Either way I'm in process of appeal and having lawyer figure out the issue.

@@rangergrinch7924 Yes. That makes more sense. Good luck.

Good morning. Chapter 48 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides options to get your rights back. But they are both uphill fights. The first is a pardon from the Governor. The second is to apply to have your rights restored. I am including a link below to the law. statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.48.htm#48.01

@@cortezdefense Good morning Sir, thank you for the reply. I heard about the pardon but was unaware of the second option. Thank you for the information.

@@cortezdefense I have a follow up question for you. Do you think 3rd circuit Supreme Court's decision in the Range case will have an effect on states decision to grant the restoration of civil right to former felons?

@@letsgobrandon5334 I was not familiar with the Range case until you mentioned it. For anyone curious about this case, the cite is Range v. AG United States, 69 F.4th 96. In that case, Bryan Range plead guilty to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps. This happened in 1995 in Lancaster County, PA. This charge was a misdemeanor, but it triggered a 922g1 gun ban because it technically carried a punishment range of up to 2 years in jail. As a result, Range could not buy a firearm. He sued under the new Supreme Court gun case arguing that 922g1 violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. See Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022). The Third Circuit agreed with Range. The analysis gets technical, but the bottom line is that the Third Circuit found that Range's type of prior conviction did not bar him from possession a firearm. In other words, the Second Amendment still protected people in Range's situation. I don't know what this means going forward. The Supreme Court is going to hear United States vs. Rahimi in its next term. It should provide more context on the Second Amendment. But the facts in Rahimi are horrible. In Rahimi, the defendant Zachey Rahimi was involved in 5 shootings. He also had a protective order against his girlfriend. Police later charged him with a 922g8 crime. That is, Rahimi possessed a gun while under a domestic violence restraining order. The Fifth Circuit said--under Bruen--the 922g statute is unconstitutional. Again, these are horrible facts. So I don't know what all this means. But you should track this case to help answer your question about restoration of gun rights. It may answer some of your questions.

I hear you. The long-term consequences of a felony conviction are harsh. Especially for gun owners. But they can also affect other rights. This includes voting rights, immigration status, and eligibility for federal benefits. This means if you are charged with a crime, then you should consider not only the possible jail time but also the collateral consequences of a conviction on your record before you plead out. In some cases, it may be worth going to trial in the hopes of preserving your other rights. Thank you for sharing this story. I hope it helps others who may be in your situation.

I am not sure what the Bullock case is. But the Supreme Court's opinion last year in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen changed how lower courts analyze 2nd Amendment rights. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Bruen case is creating chaos. Specifically many lower courts are struggling to figure out how to apply Bruen. See the article below. www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-nations-gun-laws-are-in-chaos-587ded3f?st=umanj3n1frmkxsp&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink On top of that, the 5th Circuit ruled earlier this year that 18 USC 922g8 violated the 2nd amendment rights of a person who possessed a gun while subject to a domestic-violence restraining order. See USA v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443. However, the Supreme Court will review this case in its next term. See case number 22-915. (United States vs. Rahimi.). We should get an answer sometime next year on how the Court will apply the Bruen analysis going forward. And more importantly, we may learn if 18 USC 922g crimes are constitutional. See the question presented to the Supreme Court below: www.supremecourt.gov/qp/22-00915qp.pdf

Good morning Focused Flex. That's a good topic. I enjoy doing the videos. The problem I am having is finding the time. I may do a blog post on that topic. Thanks for the suggestion.