TexasCHLforum.com

Bremerton man goes to prison for wife's guns

This presents an interesting question. If MacDonald prevails in the Chicago gun case, could the Heller decision be applied retroactively to Luke Groves and vacate his conviction for possession of firearms by a former felon?

The laws need to be changed on this. This man wasn't trying to break any laws and apparently had stayed out of trouble for many years. If a felon has not broken any further laws after serving his/her time, then why not drop the firearms prohibition after a while? I also fail to see why everyone in that person's environment must lose their 2A rights as well. In reality, it is nearly impossible for a felon to keep from being around guns at some point. Every time he/she visits a friend/relative, they could technically be in violation if that person has firearms in their home.

I would say if the guns were in safe and he said I do not know the keys combo to that safe. He may argued that he has no access to said guns. It is unfair. There should be someway to clear your conviction record. A felon who is is straight for 13 yrs deserve to have a path for purging his felony record and be able to acquire firearms. He has to work for and seek that path.

This is a very sad case. The man was trying to do the right thing, as any law abiding citizen would do. He even voluntarily led police to the guns. Something is wrong with the law.

I hope he wins his appeal.

Another case of "Justice" being done.

joe817 wrote:This is a very sad case. The man was trying to do the right thing, as any law abiding citizen would do. He even voluntarily led police to the guns. Something is wrong with the law.

I hope he wins his appeal.

...And hires a lawyer

Why did he lead the police to the guns?

marksiwel wrote:Why did he lead the police to the guns?

They probably asked. It's usually one of the first questions they ask when investigating a crime or potential crime.

joe817 wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Why did he lead the police to the guns?

They probably asked. It's usually one of the first questions they ask when investigating a crime or potential crime.

Do you legally have to tell the truth?

marksiwel wrote:

joe817 wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Why did he lead the police to the guns?

They probably asked. It's usually one of the first questions they ask when investigating a crime or potential crime.

Do you legally have to tell the truth?

I don't know the answer to that. I'm not in the habit of lying.....much less to the Police.

joe817 wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

joe817 wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Why did he lead the police to the guns?

They probably asked. It's usually one of the first questions they ask when investigating a crime or potential crime.

Do you legally have to tell the truth?

I don't know the answer to that. I'm not in the habit of lying.....much less to the Police.

Who said lying? I just want to plead the 5th or not answer at all if I dont have to

marksiwel wrote: Who said lying? I just want to plead the 5th or not answer at all if I dont have to

You did:

Do you legally have to tell the truth?

The opposite of telling the truth is telling a lie, at least in my book.

joe817 wrote:

marksiwel wrote: Who said lying? I just want to plead the 5th or not answer at all if I dont have to

You did:

Do you legally have to tell the truth?

The opposite of telling the truth is telling a lie, at least in my book.

Your book and the law diverge

If I report a robbery, the cops come to the door and say "Do you have any guns in the house" amI legally required to tell them "Yes officer" or can I say "None of your business"?

Plea the 5th or Say I own no guns. You are not responsible for your wife properties are you?