Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
This is the place to post your news and reviews on anything that's firearm related (rifles, magazines, ammo, barrels, holsters, training classes, optics, etc). Please try to make the reviews as thorough as possible and include pictures, or links to pictures if possible, as well as price(s). Some syndicated content will go here as well.
A felony conviction in another state does not preclude someone now living in Arizona from getting the right to own a gun, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.
In a new ruling, the judges concluded that state courts do have the power to restore an individual’s right to possess or carry a firearm, regardless of where a prior conviction occurred.
But Judge Karl Eppich, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said that does not make it automatic. He said there are limits, depending on the underlying conviction.
This would permit someone who was convicted of a "felony crime" such as the possession of a modern sporting rifle, or a "high capacity" magazine in a tyrannical state like New Yawk or Commiefornia and who is now a citizen of Arizona to have their gun rights restored.
At one extreme, Eppich said, are people who are convicted of what are classified as “dangerous offenses’’ under Arizona law -- or any offense in another state that, had it occurred here, would have been in the same category -- have no legal right to seek to have their rights restored.
A second category involves those who are convicted of “serious offenses,’’ here or elsewhere. They cannot seek to restore their rights for at least 10 years after their cases have been “absolutely discharged,’’ meaning after all fines are paid and all periods of probation have ended.
But Eppich said those convicted of “any other felony offense’’ can seek to regain their rights two years from date of absolute discharge. Gahary contends -- and prosecutors do not dispute -- that his convictions fall into that last category.
Put simply, the judge said, Arizona law contemplates exactly the kind of relief that Gahary is seeking.
What happens now is Gahary gets to go back to trial court to convince the judge he should be allowed to possess and carry a weapon. But Eppich said that is far from automatic.
“As both Gahary and the state acknowledge, it is in the trial court’s discretion on remand to determine whether to grant the motion on the merits,’’ the appellate judge said.
I know a guy who has a federal conviction, and he hasn't bothered trying to get his rights restored because he was told the state wouldn't do it. While this case deals with convictions in other states, I wonder if it could apply to federal convictions as well.
Afterall, the way the article reads seems to suggest it; "In a new ruling, the judges concluded that state courts do have the power to restore an individual’s right to possess or carry a firearm, regardless of where a prior conviction occurred."
xerts1911 wrote: ↑September 1st, 2021, 8:47 am
Yeah this makes no sense at all, a felony is a felony regardless of where it happened, am I missing something here?
Yes you are. See my original post for examples regarding guns and magazines. Another example would be that at one time there were state laws against miscegenation (interracial marriage). Interracial marriage was legal in some states and a crime in others. Another example of state-to-state differences is in the age of consent which varies between 16 and 18 in the United States. A girl that is legal in one state is jail bait in another. We have a patchwork of laws in the United States which varies from state to state so what is legal depends on which state you are in.
IMO, something legal in one state should not be allowed to be a felony in any others as felonies affect said persons rights in all states.
It seems like more things are made into felonies every gd'd minute.
sonofbp wrote: ↑September 1st, 2021, 5:27 pm
IMO, something legal in one state should not be allowed to be a felony in any others as felonies affect said persons rights in all states.
It seems like more things are made into felonies every gd'd minute.
