Louisiana Expungements do not allow firearm ownership according to NICS/FBI/DOJ

[Nathan Hale]

Another law is was reading about was Sb 135 which was passed Jan 1st 2014 which was supposed to improved reporting to nics. This may also have something to do and the timing is suspicious as the was told by Frank DeFuko at the LA supreme Court that he started getting calls around the 1st of the year. Maybe they are just denying everyone with either a UPIN or a 10yr cleanse until they can sort out who can or can't legally own a gun. This is exclusively a state issue and based on that article the Supreme Court judges still understand that after 10 yrs under state law your rights are restored so I don't understand why the would try and misconstrued state law send out these letter to us who have waited 10yrs to receive our rights back per state law when LA judges have a totally opposite opinion and have reaffirmed it as recently as a few months ago.

Gungrabishere14, please continue to report what you know and learn, even after you move. Your info is valuable (as are other's in this thread.) We must deal with this attempt to increase the category of prohibited persons. I fear this is what the gun controlist will be doing; that is, increase the number of prohibited persons by increasing who is a prohibited person (that is, increase the catagories of prohibited persons.)

They will stop at nothing to disarm our nation.

NH
p.s. What is SB135; I'm not familiar with it?

 

[Gungrabishere14]

This is just a brief summary buy Google sb 135 jindalGun Safety

SB 135 by Senator Neil Riser requires increased reporting standards to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database.
This legislation will help keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill while maintaining confidentiality of individuals’ mental health records.
Increased reporting standards will include individuals who are ineligible to purchase firearms based on their involuntary commitment to an inpatient mental facility, found not guilty by reason of insanity, found not competent to stand trial or convicted of a violent crime.
This legislation also establishes a mechanism by which an individual whose mental illness diagnosis has been reversed may regain their right to possess a firearm through a petition to the court.
There is more to it than this but I just found the timing curious.

 

[infringed]

This letter was recently sent out to FFLs in Louisiana.

PDF Version: https://mega.co.nz/#!vgRgGZCS!5SfrZBt-mKd7r7FNritJZQNH2lmfzdV9zTfI9VqvmW4

 

[coance]

Black balled I did not get a email from the state police. I got a phone call from them in response to a email I sent to Governor Jindal's office.I can get you the Sargents number and her name if you need info from her.

Infringed I saw this letter that went out to LA FFL's today. Friend of mine got one. I would say all FFl's in Louisiana will probably get one some time soon.

 

[Nathan Hale]

This is just a brief summary buy Google sb 135 jindalGun Safety

SB 135 by Senator Neil Riser requires increased reporting standards to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database.
This legislation will help keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill while maintaining confidentiality of individuals’ mental health records.
Increased reporting standards will include individuals who are ineligible to purchase firearms based on their involuntary commitment to an inpatient mental facility, found not guilty by reason of insanity, found not competent to stand trial or convicted of a violent crime.
This legislation also establishes a mechanism by which an individual whose mental illness diagnosis has been reversed may regain their right to possess a firearm through a petition to the court.
There is more to it than this but I just found the timing curious.

Thank you, and yes, the timing is curious.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Executive Action?

Does anyone think this has anything to do with Obama and his "Executive Action" activities? He's always talking about how he is going to "...act on my own..."
Just wondering.

NH

 

[Nathan Hale]

infringed, thanks for the letter.

NH

 

[Gungrabishere14]

Yes thank you infringed. Seems like the only relieve will have to come from Jindal office. Obviously the LA supreme Court judges are on our side. The legislation will need to change the law the cite concerning ccw or Jindal start handing out Pardons to everyone who falls under 14.95.1 (c) and had their rights restored per LA LAW. We do have to keep in perspective who sent out these letters but criminals themselves who run guns to drug cartels and are allowing illegal immigrants in as we speak. So they choose which laws to enforce or dismantle the ones they don't like. Many of us have moved on and grown up and that why our rights were restored. Now how will they enforce it beyond not allowing any further purchases.

 

[tim9lives]

I do think that this is related to Eric Holder's directions to the ATF.

So...they are skirting the past policy of "referring back to the state's rights / laws."

In any case....IMO...it's all part of the bigger picture of increasing restrictions of 2nd Amendment Rights. Like Nathan said....whittling away at the group of firearm owners.

First it was the GCA of 1968. Then...a number of years ago...making it so that one needs to be at least 18 years old to go shooting or hunting.

Then the Brady Bill and NICS background checks. Whats next ?

PTSD. ??

Any psychiatric treatment for depression. ??

DWI ??

Back in the 1960s and 70s....over 54% of households owned a firearm.

Now...its around 35%

And the sad thing is the simple fact that the current laws on the books are not enforced.
In the TP today...a 21 y/o named Eric Youngblood was named as a "person of interest" in a home invasion and murder. This kid had a record for MANY, Many arrests and convictions.
I think he was arrested and convicted in 2007 for drug distribution with a concealed weapon. Then again for the exact same thing a couple of years later.
And then in 2010....and 2012....more concealed weapon charges and firearm while a felon. And yet....he is not in prison. He was free to murder someone in N.O. East.

So...pass more and more laws. Restrict the rights of those who obey the laws. But when someone who is obviously a thug and criminal gets caught again and again and again with an illegal firearm...they slap him on the wrist and send him on his way.

Something is very wrong with this picture. FWIW.....I can not remember reading about a single case in which someone who served his debt to society....waited 10 years for his firearms rights to be restored...and then was caught violating a firearm law.

Almost 99% of these guys who break the law...usually commit the felony with a firearm law within 12 months.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/07/new_orleans_police_seek_person_2.html#incart_river

FWIW...check out his arrest record.
Just a few months ago...he was arrested and pled guilty for the same damned thing...felon with a gun. And yet...they let him out...and even agree to not double bill him.

I mean WTF.
Primary
740601 / 0 YOUNGBLOOD, ERIC B M 12/11/1987 1
Charge Detail Information
Ars Date ArrestNo Item Number Folder MagNo/Sec CaseNo/Sec
// 0 / 463385 / J
01/26/2007 11642179 A2766107 2061931 474448 / M2 None
01/26/2007 11642179 A2766107 2061931 474448 / M2 469327 / J
// A2766107 0 474448 / 469327 / J
01/30/2009 11825105 A3491809 2175806 498042 / M3 None
01/30/2009 11825105 A3491809 2175806 498042 / M3 None
01/30/2009 11825105 A3491809 2175806 498042 / M3 483992 / F
01/30/2009 11825105 A3491809 2175806 498042 / M3 483992 / F
04/25/2006 11576892 D2376006 2017539 464642 / M1 465926 / J
05/20/2008 11761502 E2469808 2136880 489798 / M3 478586 / M3
08/11/2010 11973521 E3697910 2263682 517040 / M1 None
06/14/2008 11768440 F1762608 2140925 490621 / M2 None
08/11/2010 11973522 H1161810 2263682 517040 / M1 500996 / F
08/11/2010 11973522 H1161810 2263682 517040 / M1 500996 / F
08/11/2010 11973522 H1161810 2263682 517040 / M1 500996 / F
08/11/2010 11973522 H1161810 2263682 517040 / M1 None
08/11/2010 11973522 H1161810 2263682 517040 / M1 None
11/18/2006 11627115 K1886406 2051577 472053 / M4 None

 

[coance]

The sad part is that you are exactly correct. The only people that are restricted by new laws, or existing laws for that matter, are law abiding citizens. The proof is in the people that are here talking about this. I would say that most people this effects will steer clear of firearms once they hear of it until if and when it gets corrected. These people had their rights restored and then taken back away. That is why I agree that it is just one small part of a plan to restrict more people. I feel that anyone who doesn't think so is just fooling themselves.

 

[Gungrabishere14]

We have to keep pressure on the governors and atty generals office to try and fix this by any legal mean available to them. Let just hope Jindal was sincere about strengthening our rights and doesn't fold to the feds concerning this because most people don't even know they are in violation unless they received a letter or tried to make a purchase and were denied. Again I think the majority of us could care less about a ccw living in an open carry state but a lot of us have had out rights several years now and are at a loss on how to protect ourselves or who to turn too especially when u call and nobody knows or act like they never heard what you are talking about. Hard to believe but maybe this is just the beginning. My letter was dated the same date as what infringed posted.

 

[Ktlatx]

Just came across this post and I too am confused...state law was there is a 10 year cleansing so to speak under 14.95.1, but the federal government is now saying no go after all this time.

After being approved numerous times, my husband received a denial. Thinking perhaps there was a mistake, we got the appropriate paperwork from the court. The court clerk was even nice enough to copy and highlight the 14.95.1 statute.

We just got the same letter as the original poster stating the same federal case law. I am simply baffled as to how they believe this is even comparable as the individual in that case was convicted multiple times of felonies and the 10 year cleansing only applies to someone who made a mistake once and then kept themselves out of trouble. Additionally, in that case, the state said he could possess a shotgun or rifle but not a handgun. The federal ruling stated that if the state restricts a TYPE if weapon he still cannot possess legally, but doesn't say anything about a manner of possession ie concealed.

So, what do we do from here?

Sorry I am late to the party so to speak...just extremely frustrated.

 

[madwabbit]

I'll just go ahead and say it: you guys may have a justified reason to fight this, but in the end you're proving liberals exactly correct.

"Most of the people pushing against gun controls are felons or drug addicts that want their guns back. These are exactly the reasons we want these laws and their cries are validation that the laws are effective" - Nancy Pelosi at UC Berkeley, 2011.


Personally, I feel like being a felon and launching this debate under the premise that its some government conspiracy gun-grab is hurting gun control for the masses, and to put it less tactfully: its ignorant and quite frankly embarrassing to see.

If you disagree with felon in possession or NICS regulations, you (yet again) hold the ultimate trump card: don't commit a felony. Expungements are not magic erasers to your lapse(s) of judgement- they are blindfolds that make it difficult to find the information. As 323 stated, "i can expunge my speeding ticket, but my insurance still goes up". Expunged just means its not in a paper folder with your name on it. You still committed the offense, and will suffer lasting consequences.

On one hand, there ARE probably a few (and mind you, not more than a very very few) that got screwed over by some ridiculous grey-area situation. For those people, I say sure - argue it until you're blue in the face.

On the other hand, anyone with repeat offenses (regardless of what they are) should absolutely have this much difficulty, and it gives me great pleasure to see you guys struggling over this.

Cheers.

 

[Ktlatx]

Louisiana law is very clear...you get one chance...if you go 10 years with no subsequent convictions then and only then are your rights restored.

This isn't a matter of people with repeated screw ups. This is a matter of people, in most cases, who made bad choices in their younger years...paid their debt to society and have been law abiding, productive citizens since.

This isn't John Doe who was convicted yesterday...10 years from the end of their sentence...or probation.

The sad thing is this will most likely impact guys who just want a gun to go hunting ...those with nefarious purposes aren't going to be going to their local FFL dealer.

Obviously you haven't followed the thread and don't know Louisiana law. The problem is these guys could pass a background check 6 months ago and now suddenly they can't. That's not right.

 

[madwabbit]

...those with nefarious purposes aren't going to be going to tier local FFL dealer.

I'm not saying its right- I'm just saying that its not a government conspiracy gun grab. You aren't infringed, you aren't the victim of a conspiracy, and you aren't having your guns "grabbed" by the boogey man. You are a former felon jumping through hoops of legislation designed against keeping you from possessing a firearm. Hoops that you built, no less.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with (all of) it- but its absolutely not some government domination scheme to deplete the gun pool. thats just lol worthy.

 

[Ktlatx]

I never suggested it was a conspiracy. Again, read the entire thread and educate yourself on Louisiana law. There is a state process in place for rights to be restored. Basic civil rights are restored under a First Offender Pardon after the completion of a sentence with the exception of the right to possess a weapon. You have to follow the 10 years cleansing per Louisiana statute 14.95.1 to have rights restored.

To me, it's not about a conspiracy theory. It's confusion why, over 15 years after a case was decided by the Supreme Court, that is no where near comparable to the Louisiana law they are trying to circumvent the intent of the state law.

Federal law is clear...if rights are restored by the state, federal rights are restored. Louisiana 14.95.1 sets forth a path for reinstatement. Until approximately 6 months ago, the individuals in question passed NCIS background checks and suddenly they don't. There was NO change in Louisiana law, and actually it was again upheld in December of 2013. The change came from the federal side and their decision to start applying a 16 year old case as the reason for denial.

 

[Ktlatx]

This is a group of people trying to follow the law and actually following the State law only to discover that the same federal system who told them for years and as recently as 6 months ago they were legal no longer are legal...with no changes to the applicable laws.

I don't know if you really haven't read the thread, if you don't care, or if you are just stirring the pot...but if federal law says to refer to the state for restoration of rights an then arbitrarily decides to ignore tier own laws, that's something that should be concerning to everyone...not just the people impacted by it.

It's called a slippery slope.

 

[madwabbit]

This is a group of people trying to follow the law and actually following the State law only to discover that the same federal system who told them for years and as recently as 6 months ago they were legal no longer are legal...with no changes to the applicable laws.

I don't know if you really haven't read the thread, if you don't care, or if you are just stirring the pot...but if federal law says to refer to the state for restoration of rights an then arbitrarily decides to ignore tier own laws, that's something that should be concerning to everyone...not just the people impacted by it.

It's called a slippery slope.

I'm more than familiar with state law, thanks. A NICS denial doesn't mean your rights haven't been restored- thats what you (and many others here) are missing. Just because NICS says "denied" it doesn't suddenly translate to being illegal for you to own, possess, or buy. It makes it a PITA.

I admittedly didn't read the thread (i skimmed) because the tidbits of sense are mixed into a pile of manure from usual manure spreaders.

Has anyone that received a "denied" sent the transaction and ssn in for an appeal?
If so, What were they told?


my sister's husband purchased a new gun a few months ago and he has prior felony from when he was 19. He's 37 now, and was approved. dunno what to tell ya. Everything I've seen and heard other than this thread is that it works just fine. So uh, maybe its you guys specifically and not the "system"??? - is the point I'm getting at (thats a request, not a remark)

 

[infringed]

A NICS denial doesn't mean your rights haven't been restored- thats what you (and many others here) are missing. Just because NICS says "denied" it doesn't suddenly translate to being illegal for you to own, possess, or buy. It makes it a PITA.

This isn't about erroneous denials. As you can see in the attached letter (PDF version here), the ATF maintains that anyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or greater is prohibited from possessing firearms in the state of Louisiana, even if the conviction is set aside or dismissed.

my sister's husband purchased a new gun a few months ago and he has prior felony from when he was 19. He's 37 now, and was approved. dunno what to tell ya. Everything I've seen and heard other than this thread is that it works just fine. So uh, maybe its you guys specifically and not the "system"??? - is the point I'm getting at (thats a request, not a remark)

In 2012 I was "erroneously" denied, sent in court documentation and received a UPIN and subsequent proceed responses. This isn't a case of a mistaken denial. The state maintains that I am not prohibited from owning firearms; the ATF says that I am.

 

[Ktlatx]

Several people have appealed and been told that they are still considered as a felon ineligible to possess based on the case law listed further up in the thread. They stated because a felon cannot possess a conceal carry permit they cannot possess a firearm period in summary. The letters have stated nothing short of a Governor's pardon will give them back their rights. The majority of people posting on this thread just began experiencing the issue in May/June.

Given your own brother-in-laws situation, I find your earlier attitude surprising. In my husbands case, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong group of people at 19...he's 38 years now and it's been 16 years since his probation was completed and his first offender pardon granted. In all that time he has only gotten 1 ticket and it was a non-moving violation...NO other issues.

Honestly, your brother-in-law probably falls into the same category, because before this...8 months ago my husband was approved and now he's not. According to the people who have called the governors office and hired attorneys it is due to the federal government now ignoring 14.95.1.