PDA

View Full Version : The Unbelievable Reason Why This Army Vet Can’t Own a Gun



Cebu_4_2
11th July 2013, 09:49 AM
Second Amendment Revoked: The Unbelievable Reason Why This Army Vet Can’t Own a Gun Jul. 10, 2013 9:47pm Jason Howerton (http://www.theblaze.com/author/jason-howerton/)


http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/shutterstock_82992706-300x147.jpg (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/10/the-unbelievable-reason-this-20-year-army-vet-is-prohibited-from-ever-owning-a-firearm/shutterstock_82992706/)shutterstock.com



An Army veteran in Texas is fighting for his Second Amendment rights after learning that a misdemeanor pot conviction from 1971 has disqualified him from ever owning a gun.


Ron Kelly, who retired from the Army in 1993 after 20 years of service, was recently turned away when he tried to buy a .22-cal rifle at a Wal-Mart in Tomball, Texas, after a computerized background check flagged the 42-year-old arrest. The story was on the front page of the Houston Chronicle (http://blog.chron.com/narcoconfidential/2013/07/army-vet-cant-own-gun-over-minor-pot-arrest-42-years-ago/) on Wednesday.
Kelly said he had forgotten about his minor pot violation from high school — the federal government, on the other hand, has not.


The Army vet spent one night in jail and was given one year of probation. Though he didn’t realize it at the time, he was also apparently stripped of his Second Amendment rights for a lifetime.


“According to the FBI, which runs the background checks known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the law states that a person can be prevented from owing a gun if they are convicted of a misdemeanor in which they could spend more than two years behind bars,” the Houston Chronicle’s Dane Schiller writes (http://blog.chron.com/narcoconfidential/2013/07/army-vet-cant-own-gun-over-minor-pot-arrest-42-years-ago/).


“I am ashamed of the way my government has treated me,” Kelly told the Chronicle. ”The government may have the greatest of intentions with the [law], but they messed it up.”


The outraged veteran, who spent two decades of his life using firearms to defend his country, has since reached out to U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) for help in resolving the issue. He says he’d be happy with a waiver so he can regain his right to own a firearm.


As an infantryman in the Army, Kelly has fired “perhaps 100,000 rounds of government ammo over his 20 years of service,” Schiller notes.


Meanwhile, officials in North Carolina, where he was born and raised, were unable to even find records of the conviction because it is so old.


The story is reminiscent of two others on TheBlaze in recent years. In 2011, we brought you a story from Ohio where a man faced felony weapons charges (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/07/25/can-a-minor-offense-eliminate-your-right-to-bear-arms/) because he obtained a gun after having a misdemeanor marijuana charge in 2006:

Back in 2006, Paul Stone was convicted of simple marijuana possession, a “minor misdemeanor” under Ohio law. There is no jail time possible for the offense. The maximum penalty is a $150 fine, plus some community service. It is not treated as a criminal record for the purposes of employment or licensing questions about an individual’s past. But in Ohio, the legislature has placed a specific limit on the 2nd amendment related to substance possession. Specifically, Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 prohibits gun possession by any person who “has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession … in any drug of abuse.”
In February, we reported on Navy vet Jeff Schrader (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/u-s-gun-laws-retroactively-barred-this-vietnam-vet-from-owning-a-firearm-because-of-a-teenage-misdemeanor-45-years-ago/), whose story closely resembles that of Kelly’s. Schrader, too, was convicted of misdemeanor as a young man (for a fight). He paid a $109 fine and went on with his life. But when he tried to buy a gun 45 years later, the law had changed: the misdemeanor penalty for his crime back then, now caries with it a possible penalty of up to two or more years in jail. Because of that, he has been disqualified from owning a gun.


This story has been updated.
(H/T: Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/10/42-year-old-pot-conviction-stops-20-year))

steel_ag
11th July 2013, 10:11 AM
ex post facto ?

Cebu_4_2
11th July 2013, 10:13 AM
^ huh?

iOWNme
11th July 2013, 10:21 AM
The government may have the greatest of intentions with the [law], but they messed it up.[/COLOR]”

This guy cannot even begin to imagine in how many ways the world is the opposite of what he was taught to believe. To bad he is blinded by his Stockholm Syndrome and 'Patriotism' other wise he may be able to see his 'Masters' for the evil oppressors that they are.

I be he thought he had the greates of intentions when he joined the Military and helped kill innocent people.

I honestly dont give a fuck about people like this. He has the Right to own a gun to protect himself, REGARDLESS of what the 'Law' says.......That is the very definition of a Right. If you have a Right to do something, that means even if the 'Government' says you cannot.......YOU STILL CAN. And if the 'Government' tries to stop you, you have the right to use morally righteous defensive force in order to stop the criminal who is infringing upon your right. If you think this is a cooky wacko 'Extremeist' veiw.....YOU ARE RIGHT. And you are also anti-human.

steel_ag
11th July 2013, 02:05 PM
^ huh?

Regarding ...

"In February, we reported on Navy vet Jeff Schrader, whose story closely resembles that of Kelly’s. Schrader, too, was convicted of misdemeanor as a young man (for a fight). He paid a $109 fine and went on with his life. But when he tried to buy a gun 45 years later, the law had changed: the misdemeanor penalty for his crime back then, now caries with it a possible penalty of up to two or more years in jail. Because of that, he has been disqualified from owning a gun."

the following definition might apply (at least in the Navy vet's "closely resembl[ing]" story)? ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

"...laws that increase the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9...."


Another question which I haven't answered yet, does the statute prohibit carry of firearms only?

See...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0gkp8rftuasn3c3/bva_RzBgCQ/DC%20Gun%20Case%20Filings%20By%20Rod/1st%20DC%20Filing...FIRST_COMPLAINT_JUNE_18TH_2013 .doc

"The term firearm is very clear to what is a firearm. The word firearm is defined as
a saw off shotgun, saw off rifle, silencer, or a fully automatic machine gun as written in DC
Codes or in the Federal Statutes or Code Federal Regulation or any other State codes."

Twisted Titan
11th July 2013, 02:19 PM
Go to a free state that still allows private sales.

Problem solved

Serpo
11th July 2013, 03:08 PM
how come they let him in the army then

Cebu_4_2
11th July 2013, 03:44 PM
how come they let him in the army then

Goyim.