Conviction Form

Yes, there is a questions on the form regarding whether the buyer Nd intended user/owner of the firearm is a prohibited person. Actually several questions as there are several ways you can become prohibited.But, if you are thick enough to not realize that your felony conviction that all that court appearance broo-haha was about made you a prohibited person, the question that says something like “have you been convicted of a felony that had a penalty that included one years imprisonment or more?” may not be enough to make you stop and think about what you are doing.

As someone who has been published in The Huffington Post, I can tell you that it is a hard left (very liberal) paper. What they are reporting here isn't news. They are, instead, advocating under the guise of news. For what it's worth, this isn't me claiming this. Allsides did a pretty good job of evaluating them: Huffington Post. I'm not saying that HuffPo is a terrible paper, run by terrible people. Instead, you should remember that what you've just read is a public service announcement.Teddy Bears are more carefully regulated? You're kidding, right? This doesn't even pass on first glance. I doubt anyone who understands gun control could argue that teddy bears are more regulated.Do they regulate how big of a teddy bear you can buy? Do they tell you that you can buy a black teddy bear, but not a silver one? Do you have to wait ten days to pick up a teddy bear you've already paid for? Can you be arrested because the laws about teddy bear configurations have changed, and you didn't know? No? No need to keep abreast of the TONS of teddy bear legislation? Surprising. Be careful crossing state lines with your Teddy Ruxpin. You have no idea how New Jersey will react. Or New York. Or California. Firearms are far more regulated than just about anything, probably up to and including pharmacology.And, I should point out, this is all to regulate a constitutionally protected right which is never supposed to be infringed.Teddy Bears are regulated only in their manufacture. You, as a citizen and consumer don't have to worry about anything. On the other hand, as a gun owner, you constantly have to be on guard. I don't disagree with the necessity of this, but I do laugh at the outrageous assertion that it is otherwise.So all that being said, let’s look at what the Illinois Counsel Against Gun Violence has to say: Ah. They listed maybe three dozen lines of laws regulating teddy bears and one law which hits guns. Well. That’s pretty damning.Except for one thing. The federal government, per our constitution, doesn’t regulate guns. Not that it really doesn’t, mind you. It just isn’t supposed to.So here’s the rub! Let’s look at all 50 states’ laws regarding teddy bears:ZERO.Let’s look at just California state laws regarding guns:Well… I would, but I’m not sure that Quora could handle it. In fact, it’s such a byzantine set of laws, they have an entire governmental department (the Bureau of Firearms) to regulate it. There are laws on the books regarding just about everything concerning firearms.To sum things up, teddy bears aren't more heavily regulated. Nothing of the sort. But maybe they should be. You have no constitutional right to a teddy bear.

It depends on the state, and I’m not an expert - but I wanted to share my personal experience for a couple reasons.It may surprise some people - especially non-gun ownersI feel it illustrates that gun control and gun laws are two different things and before jumping to the conclusion that we need more (or fewer) laws pertaining to guns, everyone should take a few minutes to educate themselves and use common sense (gasp)This is my first time gun buying experience from about 4–5 years ago.I’d done quite a bit of research online, pretty much settled on what I wanted and decided it was time to walk into a gun store to look and make the final decision in person. After about 15 minutes I’d settled on a gen 4 Glock 19. The store was running a special on the gen 4s and I received a free box of ammunition, as well as an extra magazine. Awesome.Next up it was time to go through the background check and pay. I had to wait, because there was an older guy and his son in front of me. He was purchasing the gun for his son (because he wasn’t 21) - apparently his son was joining a junior police academy and needed a handgun. Well, his background check came back - he had some kind of domestic abuse charge - no gun for you, no gun for your son. The owner of the gun shop chastised him for even wasting her time since he clearly knew that was on his record.My turn. They ran my details, everything came back clean and it was time to pay. Something people may not realize is that guns aren’t cheap. Mine was close to $500. That’s a decent chunk of change and puts them out of many people’s signNow economically. Of course, I’d imagine criminals acquire weapons for much less - but then again they don’t go through the proper channels.Great, background check cleared, I’ve paid and ready to go. The guy behind the counter bags things up and hands it to me - then the owner starts berating him. Apparently by putting the newly purchased gun (still in the case) and the box of ammunition, into the same bag they were setting me up to get a felony when I walked out of the store. They also gave me specific instructions about putting the gun and/or ammo in the trunk of my car - NOT the passenger compartment. Again, throwing the now two separate shopping bags into my back seat would have potentially been criminal (felony).This is where things get crazy. In Ohio, you can load up a gun - put it in a holster (on the outside of your clothes) and walk around in most public places. But, as soon as you cover up the gun - or get into a car with it - you’re breaking the law (felony) unless you’ve gotten a special license/permit. This requires more background checks, fingerprinting, attending a class, paying more money, etc.Now, let’s say you’re all about following the letter of the law and you go through all of these steps so that you can carry your gun in your car. Things don’t get easier - because each state can be different. Despite having a permit, passing the background checks, etc - if you happen to drive into Chicago you could be in a lot of trouble. Apparently, you can drive right through with no problems, but if you step foot outside of your car (even to get gas, even if you leave the gun in the car) you’re now in a world of trouble (felony). It makes you wonder why Chicago has so much gun violence when the gun laws there are so strict.The laws are very strict for gun owners, they can be very confusing, and it seems, by definition, only followed by law abiding citizens.

I can name no items because no other consumer product in the United States requires FBI approval to purchase and take home beforehand.Let me repeat that: Guns are the only consumer product in the USA that requires Federal government permission to be obtained prior to taking possession of it.The article conflates lack of licensing and registration with age limits and showing ID, both of which apply to guns as well as cold medicine. I don’t recall going into any pharmacy in the USA and having to fill out a Federal drug background check form checking to see if I’ve been convicted of possession before buying Sudafed.The linked article is a classic example of the exemplary fact-checking and integrity that passes for journalism these days.

This pretty well sums up my opinion of David Hogg. He has been coached, coddled and cosseted by Michael Bloomberg and has capitalized on his celebrity as the survivor of a tragedy that was allowed to happen through ineptitude and failures of the Broward County school board, the administration of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the sheer incompetence and cowardice of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and a failure to properly route information by the FBI.Sheriff Scott Israel was removed from office by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in part because of the failure to properly respond to the incident.But David Hogg and his coterie of schoolmates gave a free pass to the sheriff’s office, Deputy Scot Petersen and everybody else in order to focus blame a Smith & Wesson rifle and a small business that had done nothing wrong at all. The business, Sunrise Tactical, was forced to close its doors after the shooting.It is highly ironic that a person supposedly damaged for life because of the actions of a person who passed a background check is such a strong proponent of them. The shooter was able to pass the background check in spite of the fact he had a long history of interactions with law enforcement due to his violent behavior. He had no criminal background, no record because he was never prosecuted for his offenses. That’s because of the policies of the Broward County school district and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.This is not NRA propaganda. These were among the findings of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Commission created by the state of Florida in response to the incident. The commission released its preliminary report in January of this year.On to my opinion of polls and the people that participate in them.Last week, NPR (National Public Radio) and the PBS Newshour conducted a Marist poll of 880 adults. The poll was conducted from February 5th through 11th.The poll showed that 82% of adults believed that background checks would make a difference. Just 15% said they would make no difference. 68% of self-identified gun owners were in favor of background checks but 30% said they would make no difference. The poll also found that 60% of respondents favored a ban on “assault weapons” and 64% favored creation of a national gun registry. 65% also believed a ban on high-capacity magazines would make a difference.The last question in the survey was, “From what you have read or heard, do you think, compared to 25 years ago, the per capita gun murder rate in the U.S. is higher, lower, or about the same?”In an odd coincidence, 82% of those surveyed believed that the gun murder rate had remained the same (23%) and the majority (59%) believing it was higher. Only 12% believed the rate had gone down.The latest data we have is from 2017. the 25-year period that includes both beginning and ending years starts in 1993. According to data complied by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the gun murder rate fell by more than 36% from 1993 to 2017.So 82% of respondents had no idea what they were talking about. That’s not surprising; they have been fed a stream of distortions and lies by politicians and media and by celebrities who don’t know what they’re talking about, either.Political party didn’t seem to matter except in the percentage of ill-informed people. Only 8% of Democrats and 9% of Republicans were aware of the truth. I am almost embarrassed to say that gun owners did no better than the average of the respondents.David Hogg’s comment is interesting. I am not afraid of a background check, I have gone through far more of them than he has, especially considering that he can’t even legally purchase a gun since Florida raised the minimum age to 21.But the background check law currently being rammed through the House isn’t about buying a gun. It’s about transferring a firearm, which is a whole different ball of wax.The federal government considers anything that shifts the physical possession of a firearm from one person to another, even temporarily, to be a transfer. If I hand my wife a gun for her to look at, that’s a transfer. When she hands it back, that’s another transfer.The bill currently being marked up does exempt me and my wife handing guns back and forth. I can even give her a gun to keep. I can do the same for my children.I can also let a friend use one of my guns at a shooting range or while hunting. But, if I let him keep the gun after the trip to clean it as a favor to me, that’s a felony, even though he is going to return it the next day.As a sop to the NRA and gun rights advocates, the bill specifically prohibits national gun registration. In the first place, that’s stupid. Establishment of a federal registry of guns or gun owners has been illegal since 1986. So this bill does what? Makes something that’s already illegal “illegaler?” In the second place, it makes the law impossible to enforce.If the government doesn’t know who owns what guns, how is it going to monitor the transfers of those guns? How is it going to make a case for prosecution? Why wouldn’t a police chief or county sheriff figure that they have better uses for their resources than chasing down cases they can’t prove. Are we going to have sting operations to catch Mr. Jones selling his old hunting rifle to his next-door neighbor? What if Mr. Jones and his neighbor said that it was actually sold before the law went into effect?Noted gun control advocate Garen Wintemute did a study of three states that enacted universal background check laws, Colorado, Delaware and Washington state. Only Delaware had a signNow increase in the volume of background check inquiries. The volumes in Colorado and Washington remained essentially flat. The homicide rates in all three states rose in the years after the laws went into effect. Wintemute concluded that the laws were ineffective because people ignored them and, in some cases, county sheriffs weren’t enforcing them.Moreover, results from other states with universal background checks are mixed. Illinois and Maryland, both of which require checks on every sale outside of immediate family, consistently report some of the highest homicide rates in the nation. Washington, D.C. is at the top or near the top every year.The thing is that I am not afraid of a background check: I am concerned about what will happen when they continue to prove to be worthless.

Federally? Never. Once you have been convicted of any crime carrying a possible sentence of more than one year (with very few exceptions; if the charges weren’t brought by the SEC they very likely do not apply), you are Federally prohibited from possessing a firearm (which is what I assume you meant by “weapon”).Some states have laxer laws on possession. Texas, for instance, allows felons to possess a firearm within their own home beginning five years after the completion of incarceration, probation or parole. You cannot take the firearm outside your own home at any time (except in accordance with “peaceable journey” laws, but the only place you can lawfully possess the firearm within the State of Texas is in your own home, so if you have it in your car you better be on your way out of state), and therefore you can’t hunt with it, you can’t go to the range to shoot it, you’re permanently ineligible to obtain an LTC, and if it’s a rifle you can’t go to “open carry events” which have become a dubious feature of the gun politics of Texas, but you can possess one without being guilty of violating TPC 46.04. You are still in violation of 18 USC Sec 922 (no State law can supersede this), and if the ATF or FBI cares enough to file charges, it’s a much bigger no-no at that level. The FBI and ATF usually have enough to do in any given jurisdiction without filing charges against people in full compliance with State law, however you live your life with a weapon and a felony record on the Feds’ good humor.Assuming you’re a convicted felon, your only recourse to be fully legal at all levels of government in owning a weapon is to petition the courts for a restoration of civil rights, or the Governor/President for a pardon. Whether one is granted at any level depends on a number of variables, primarily the nature of your offense (“nonviolent” crimes like fraud are more likely to be pardoned, “violent” crimes especially involving weapon use much less so), and your behavior since you were released (not just staying out of trouble; judges like to see efforts made to improve the community). There are unfortunately demographic variables as well; persons of color are less likely to be pardoned, especially in Republican-majority states. Not that it doesn’t happen, just that it’s less likely if you fit society’s stereotype of the violent criminal, race plays a part in that stereotype and you’d be a fool to suggest otherwise.

You mean Death Row inmates. I corresponded with serial killer John Wayne Gacy for several years. While attending a writing convention in Nashville, someone was passing around a book by Gacy, THEY CALL HIM MR. GACY, which was nothing but copies of letters he had received from reporters, family members, talk show hosts, lawyers. It was published the previous year, 1989.He murdered at least 37 male teenagers and adults and buried most in a crawlspace under his house. He was arrested in December of 1979 and was executed by lethal injection in May of 1994.During that time, he had a day job. He worked in the laundry. He also did paintings, mostly of the Seven Dwarves. He sent me a list of his paintings and their prices, and if I had bought one he did of Elvis for $65 I could sell it today for $3000. He couldn’t make money from his work, so a friend in Indiana had all of the paintings he had done before his incarceration. So the artwork he did while in prison was more a hobby. But he loved getting mail, and he answered every letter he received.I wrote him on a whim and was genuinely surprised that he answered. So I contacted a magazine that would print a potential article on his last days, and we wrote back and forth for about two years. The postmark on that last letter above is dated six days before his death. But he asked for people to send him photos of themselves and he would send them a questionnaire to fill out and he would fill one out in return. That creeped me out, so I sent him a photo of the recently-closed Clown’s Alley tavern in exchange for that Q&A. A good portion of his salary went to buying stamps, envelopes, and paper. The questionnaire was photocopied in bulk in 1989 by MYCO, Inc., who also published the book.He was very narcissistic. The real killer was a media monster, not him. He would often talk about his paintings of the Dwarves and his work as Pogo the Clown at parties. Anything related to his conviction was blamed on the media. And the title of his “book”, because all it was was a bound copy of photocopied pages, was filled with narcissism, too. Every letter I sent started “Dear John…”, the ones that “call him Mr. Gacy” would have been from the offices of Oprah Winfrey or Larry King, because of course they were professional letters.So I do have a copy of that form, the one that says his current address is Death Row, Chester, Illinois. He loved to blame the media. Take a look at who one of his heroes was at the time of his execution.

Federal prosecutions of felons and fugitives who attempt to buy a firearm round to zero.  In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them.So let me explain how this works:  You go to a federally licensed dealer, you pick out a gun, and you fill out ATF Form 4473.  Among other things that you swear to by filling out and signing the form are that you are not a convicted felon, you are not a fugitive from justice, you have not been adjudicated mentally deficient, and about a dozen other things, most of which would firmly place you into groups that society doesn't want owning a gun.The dealer then checks your answers, and if for instance you answered that you have a conviction for domestic violence, he basically shreds your 4473 and tells you to get out.  Otherwise...The dealer then calls the FBI NICS check system where an operator keys in your personal information, several databases are searched, and they attempt to verify that you don't fall into any of those prohibited groups.  In 2010, 48,321 times, a search of those databases by the FBI showed that a person attempting to buy a gun was a convicted felon or a fugitive from justice.  Their sales were denied.  Let's be very clear here: At this point they have committed a federal crime by attempting to illegally purchase a firearm.  This should be a slam-dunk case: there's a signed form stating that they're not prohibited, there's data in the FBI's databases stating that they are prohibited, and there's a witness to their fraud (the dealer) who can testify.And yet, in only 44 out of those 48,321 instances were they prosecuted for it by the Department of Justice.

There are so many things wrong with this question that I'm not sure where to start first. But I'll try.First, in order to sue someone, the plaintiff has to have been damaged (generally in a financial manner) in some way, and since you've not explained how you have been damaged, I would suspect that any civil action you take against any weapons manufacturer would be tossed out as frivolous.Beyond that, your question simply makes no sense. Are you yourself mentally ill? Sounds like a distinct possibility. Also, an assault weapon is not what you think it is. No one who is mentally ill can purchase a fully automatic rifle, which is what is generally considered an assault weapon. Purchasing these weapons requires a license which is VERY difficult to obtain.Other than that, there are thousands of items which could be used as a weapon to assault someone. I could assault you by striking you in the back of the head with a shovel. Do you want to sue the manufacturers of garden tools?In America, we have lots of laws against assault. These laws punish the individual who assaults another person, regardless of the implement they use in this assault. The gun, knife, or shovel used is not responsible for the assault. And neither is the manufacturer, or the retail sales outlet. The person is.

When the period is over, your conviction is called 'spent' and you may not need to tell an employer about it anymore. ... You'll have to disclose criminal convictions immediately after you've been found guilty. But in most cases your rehabilitation period begins when your sentence ends.

Twelve states restrict reporting information on any case older than seven years. These states include: California, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Texas, and Washington. Many employers check only five to ten years history when hiring applicants.

A criminal record is not necessarily grounds for termination. In fact, it can lead to liability for discrimination, which can result in a wrongful dismissal suit.

If your conviction is unspent you must tell them if they ask. ... You can check what right the employer has to know about your 'spent' convictions before you answer them. If they have what is called the 'basic disclosure' right to information, then you do not have to tell them about your spent convictions.

Knowing when you have to declare your conviction If you have received a prison sentence of more than four years, your conviction will never become spent, and you must declare it.