Source: https://www.johntfloyd.com/federal-firearm-crimes/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:09:05+00:00

Document:
John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and in an expert in criminal law. He is a respected author of several articles discussing issues related to firearms and criminal law. Mr. Floyd travels to criminal courts throughout Texas and federal courts nationwide representing businesses and individuals charged with serious crimes involving firearms, including: Manufacturing, Importing or Dealing Firearms without a license, Felon in Possession of a Firearm, and Self Defense.
All constitutional rights are limited. This includes the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.” This has always been the case. One significant limitation of the right to bears arms is the almost universally accepted prohibition against convicted felons possessing firearms.
The Court followed this observation with the specific point that the Second Amendment does not prohibit laws that curtail, or eliminate altogether, the right of felons to keep and bear arms. The federal government and states have enacted laws that not only restrict the right of felons to possess firearms but to punish them with severe criminal sanctions if they do so.
On October 22, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed into the law the Gun Control Act of 1968 which is codified in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922, 924.
Among other things, 18 U.S.C. § 922 prohibits anyone other than a license manufacturer or dealer from engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing or dealing in firearms or ammunition. 18 U.S.C 924 prohibits and severely punishes the use of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking or a crime of violence.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
A person convicted under § 922 is subject to a fine and a sentence of not more than 10 years in federal prison unless the offender has three separate prior convictions for a violent felony or drug offense which will then subject him to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years. Any sentence imposed under § 922 is not subject to probation or any form of suspension.
The person’s right to a jury trial was observed or intelligently waived.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) prohibits the use of a firearm or any dangerous weapon during any crime of violence or drug trafficking offense.
possessed the firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense.
A defendant does not have to carry the gun himself to be liable under § 924(c).
The Government need only show that a co-defendant (“co-conspirator”) carried a firearm and that it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that the co-defendant would carry the firearm. This makes a defendant as culpable as the co-conspirator who actually carried the firearm. This kind of situation most often occurs in drug trafficking offenses.
It is generally easy for the Government to establish a conspiracy between two or more defendants to possess and distribute drugs. While this predicate crime is relatively easy to prove, it is more difficult to prove that a non-firearm carrying defendant knew, or foreseeably could have known, that a co-conspirator would possess a firearm in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This evidentiary hurdle notwithstanding, the Government has the edge in these cases because the firearm does not have to be present when the drugs are verified, or even when they actually change hands. The Government must simply establish a “nexus” between the drugs and a deadly weapon for the jury to reasonably make a finding of guilt.
For example, the Government need only show the presence of a firearm at some juncture in the conspiracy, and because guns are considered “common tools of the drug trade,” the showing that one co-conspirator possessed a gun reasonably implies that one or more of the other co-conspirators involved in their “collaborative criminal venture” knew about the possession.
In effect, the courts have concluded that because drug trafficking is a “dangerous, violent business,” it is reasonably foreseeable that firearms will usually be used in a drug trafficking conspiracy with the knowledge of all the conspirators involved.
Further, the courts have uniformly concluded that firearms are a necessary tool to protect not only the drugs but the well-being of all those involved in the trafficking business.
Finally, with respect to the range of § 924 penalties, all of which are to be applied “in addition to” the predicate offense, they are severe and unforgiving.
A second conviction of any of the foregoing firearm possessions mandates a sentence of not less than 25 years unless the firearm is a machinegun and/or is equipped with a silence/muffler which mandates a sentence of life imprisonment.
A defendant convicted under § 924 is not eligible for probation. Parole is not available to any defendant convicted of a Federal offense.
Further, any sentence imposed under § 924 cannot run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment, including the predicate offenses of drug trafficking and/or violence.
Section 46.04 of the Texas Penal Code governs the unlawful possession of a firearms by a person convicted of certain crimes. The offense can range from a Class A misdemeanor, for those convicted of domestic violence, to a third-degree felony for convicted felons in possession of a firearm.
after the period described in subsection (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.
A conviction under this section is a third degree felony with a range of punishment of two to 10 years for a defendant with one prior felony conviction, as well as a fine up to $10,000.00.
In order to convict a felon for possession of a firearm in Texas, the State must first show that the defendant is a convicted felon who, within five years of his release from prison or community supervision, knowingly and voluntarily possessed a firearm.
found in an enclosed space.
Some felons incorrectly assume that if they do not actually physically “possess” the weapon, they cannot be charged under Section 46.04. That is not the case.
As examples, courts have found that a gun in the trunk of a girlfriend’s vehicle or having possession of shop ticket for a shotgun are sufficient basis for conviction under Section. 46.04.
While there are no affirmative defenses to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, there are general defenses under Texas law which may be invoked by a defendant charged under Section 46.04.
For example, Texas Penal Code Section 8.02 permits a “mistake of fact” defense. Essentially, this defense requires a showing by the defendant that through a mistake he/she formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact which negated the requisite culpability to commit a crime. This defense, however, is viable only if the defendant presents sufficient evidence which negates the requisite culpable mental state; namely, that the defendant did not knowingly or intentionally possess a firearm.
he reasonably relied upon either an administrative order or written interpretation of law contained in an opinion of record.
according to the ordinary standards of reasonableness, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.
Once a defendant presents some evidence that supports this defense, the prosecution bears the burden of persuasion to disprove the defense.
Further, a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on these defenses, regardless of whether his/her evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and without regard to the trial court’s appraisal of its credibility.
For example, a former gang member who is kidnapped by the members of the gang and who manages to steal a gun from the gang member guarding him in order to escape is entitled to an instruction on the defense of necessity.
The downside to raising any of these defenses that go to his or her culpable mental state, the State can introduce extraneous offenses and/or bad acts committed by the defendant to rebut the defenses under Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence.
Texas has a “cleansing” period that allows a felon to own a firearm after specified period of time following a criminal conviction.
For example, Section 46.04 permits an individual with a felony conviction to possess a firearm on the premises where he or she resides five years after the individual’s release from prison or probation.
The problem is that Section 46.04 does not trump federal law, § 922.
The Supreme Court has held that whether a felon’s civil rights have been restored must be determined under the laws of the state in which the conviction was had.
Under Article 48.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a pardon restores the right to serve on a jury, right to hold public office, and right to serve as Executor or Administrator to an estate.
The right to vote in Texas is automatically restored upon discharge from a conviction.
The current federal policy is to follow the state law of the jurisdiction regarding felons in possession. So, unless the circumstances are unusual or the felon is criminal target, it is unlikely that the federal government will charge a felon who is legally possessing inside their home for self-protection inside the State of Texas. This is only law enforcement policy and nothing would legally prevent the federal government for prosecuting a felon possessing in their own home.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana. Four states have also legalized marijuana for recreational and personal usage while a number of states have decriminalize personal marijuana use by replacing criminal penalties with civil fines.
But can legal marijuana, used for either medical or recreational purposes, coexist in the family home with gun ownership?
In September 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a public letter (in response to gun owner queries) that any kind of marijuana is a “controlled substance” within the meaning of Section 922(g)(3).
that drug use impairs judgment.
Two months after this decision, U.S. Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., introduced legislation intended to overturn the 2011 ATF letter by prohibiting federal funds from being used to prosecute gun owners who are registered medical marijuana users. The legislation does not cover recreational marijuana users.
Former presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., offered support for the Walsh legislation. The Walsh legislation has apparently stalled in the bureaucracy of Congress.
Currently the state of the federal law remains that it is illegal to possess a firearms and use marijuana.

References: § 922
 § 922
 § 922
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 922