Recently, a relative who is a convicted felon, has served his time, and is out on probation, moved into our home. His crime had nothing to do with firearms. My husband and I both have carry permits and handguns. The person in question lives in a basement apartment with his own entrance, but does have access to the upstairs as well. My question is, are we allowed to keep our handguns in our home, in our personal area, or would that be a violation of his probation that states he cannot possess a firearm?
Recent thread Here's a recent thread on this topic: https://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=270786
Another Another couple threads about living with a felon who can't possess guns or ammo. https://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=269963&highlight=Felon+constructive+possession https://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=268761&highlight=Felon+constructive+possession
This can be seen as a good thing. Not because of the number of felon related questions, but because when people have questions, they seek out somewhere to get the honest & thorough answers they need. That leads them to GPDO.
Cliffs Notes version - Your felon relative cannot have access to your handguns or your ammunition. Both must be in your direct possession; either on you or in a locked container at all times. Felon relative cannot have access to the keys and/or combinations to the locked containers. A keyed lock on your bedroom door would be wise. That aside, these deprivation of rights laws are just plain stupid. If a felon can be released into the general population then they should have access to all their rights. Otherwise, keep them locked up. Felons have as much right to self defense as anyone else does.
No No. Politicians don't get elected or re-elected by being soft on criminals. Law-and-order is the safer position. That being said, Georgia has a process by which most deli a who have long since completed their sentences can petition the Board of Pardons and Paroles to get their gun rights back.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles has a process to restore gun rights to certain persons convicted of felonies (and even misdemeanors, in limited instances). ● You must have completed all sentence(s) at least five (5) years prior to applying. ● You must have lived a law-abiding life during the five (5) years prior to applying. ● You cannot have any pending charges. ● All fines and restitution must be paid in full. The 14 page General Pardon application is http://pap.georgia.gov/sites/pap.ge...ion/Pardon Application Revised July 2016 .pdf Reading the application, one sees questions regarding drug use, drug convictions, firearm offenses, debts, civil case history, employment history, child support among others. My impression is that compared to the Pardon Application of 2013, this 2016 version is about ten pages longer. Whereas the 2013 version seemed to be used to obtain information to verify qualification to some specific requirements, the 2016 version seems to ask a whole lot more general information that does not appear to verify qualification to some specific requirements but, instead, appears to obtain a more "holistic" view of the applicant so that even though the applicant meets all of the requirements of the 2013 application that same applicant might be denied restoration of rights (including restoration of firearm rights) not because the applicant failed any specific legal requirement(s) but because the applicant failed (on the balance) to "make the grade" in the eyes of the Pardon committee because of some answers to some questions that are quite tangential to actual legal requirements placed upon qualification for firearm ownership. I am sympathetic to the evolution of the process for the restoration of firearm rights by the Pardon committee because of concern of issuance of a pardon with restoration of firearm rights eventually being implicated in a violent crime. As we now see with current news events, the wrath of public opinion freely exercised upon public officials in response to each new news story is excoriating. And yet, there are freedoms which are Constitutionally guaranteed (and more or less protected). That's what the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles are now facing with federal firearms restrictions imposed for state convictions of certain crimes for which federal law allow for the restoration of firearm rights IF state pardons are obtained for those state convictions. That Board is performing an unenviable balancing act of the protection of individual firearm rights balanced with the protection of citizens from any reasonable likelihood that those convicted of crimes of certain crimes will continue, or graduate unto, crimes involving firearms (i.e. recidivism).
Apparently the State views some rights more equally than other rights. I guess this is no different than how the State views non-felon citizens.
One thing people forget is that post-release probation is part of your sentence. I have a friend who was convicted of a felony, given 2 years incarceration (served 6 months), then given ~20 years non-reporting probation. It will be 5 more years before he can apply. The crime was a drug offense without weapons or violence.
I believe that any felon that has served their time should be given full second amendment rights as soon as they are released from prison, because if they are too dangerous to trust with a firearm what in the world are we doing releasing them from prison in the first place?
That would be a good reason to contact your state representative. He (or her) won't know unless you tell him (or her).
I'd support continuing a gun ban for probationers- - people currently still under a sentence, but serving it through probation rather than incarceration. But once a person has completed probation without being found in violation and returned to prison, sure, they should be totally free. No disqualifications as to weapons, or holding public office, or voting, or any other rights of citizens. If some crimes are so terrible that a person who does them can NEVER be trusted in free society again, make them crimes which carry a "probation for life" penalty. Like murder, or child molestation.
Only if the probation sentences are revised. The courts presently seem quite willing to hand down multi-decade probation for convictions that would not have received sentences exceeding 10% of that. They don't view it as part of a continuing sentence, but merely an "observation" period.
What's wrong with that? Suppose a 25 year old dude, a meth addict, (with no other violence or theft offenses in his past, just some alcohol/ drug violations on his record) robs a Quikie Mart with a machete? Since he committed "armed robbery" the penalty has to be at least 10 years, and up to life (or death, but the Supreme Court voided the death penalty for anything other than murder many years ago). Since he used a weapon OTHER THAN A GUN, he doesn't actually have to serve a minimum of 10 years in actual prison. Any or all of his sentence could be probated. A guy like this might get "20 serve 3." 20 years is the total sentence, of which the judge says the first 3 years are in prison, followed by 17 more years probation. (And the guy might get out on PAROLE after only 12-18 months, and be on parole for a while before switching over to probation). So.... suppose this dude is released at age 27 and moves into your neighborhood. Is there anything wrong with limiting his civil rights, especially his gun rights, for 18 more years, until he's age 45? What if he did his crime at age 16? Would you want him to be a totally free citizen, on equal footing with the rest of us, just 10 years later, when he's 26? How about 20 years later? I think multi-decade sentences of probation have their place.
Having seen it firsthand, it's not accomplishing a damn thing. Yes, there is. The idea that you are somehow preventing a violent person from having a gun is simply false. If he intends to do violence, he will get a gun. The ONLY person you are affecting/punishing is the law abiding ex-con. The very person who SHOULD have their rights restored. If he is still a threat, he needs to be incarcerated. If he is not a threat, you are accomplishing nothing by depriving a law abiding citizen of his civil rights. Also, you side-stepped my point. Probationary sentences are being handed down currently that FAR exceed any jail time that would have ever been issued. As in 20 years for street level non-violent drug offenses. The system views probation as non-punitive, and so very long period are being handed down "just in case"
I presume that people have a harder time obtaining contraband than legal items, and that there IS value in banning criminals from having guns, even if smart criminals can often find a workaround to get a gun anyway. If we don't want certain people to have guns, the law should say so. According to your logic, there should be no regulation of explosives, and no restrictions against a person on a terrorist watch list from buying dynamite at the local farm supply store. Because, after all, he can make his own explosives, or steal them, or have a friend buy them in a straw purchase, etc. According to your logic, we shouldn't have any law requiring a person be 16 years old to get a driver's license, or that you need a license to drive a car at all. Because 14 year olds who WANT to drive and have no regard for the law can physically drive any car that they can find the keys for. No "law" physically stops them from doing what they want. So why should we have this law on our books when it only impacts those who choose to obey it?
I think the main focus should be on what group of people to disarm. I agree that "all persons previously convicted of a felony crime" is too broad. Many people in that group can be trusted with guns and have worthy, legitimate uses for those guns in mind, not any future crime. I do not think that "all persons currently incarcerated in a jail or prison" is a broad enough grouping. There are provably dangerous people in that group that I'm willing to see let out of prison ONLY on the condition that they are second-class citizens with several of their fundamental rights limited. No guns, a reduced expectation of privacy (easier for the gov. to monitor their activities without violating the 4th Amendment), and less "due process of law" required to send them back to prison for a new crime committed while on parole or probation for a prior crime.