Non-violent felons in Virginia may now own certain black powder firearms

Last year I wrote an article admonishing those with felony convictions to not believe the oft-repeated rumor that felons can still possess, and hunt with, black powder firearms.

In that article I noted that, while ‘antique firearms’ are not prohibited to felons under federal law, Virginia state law still (at that time) prohibited it.

However, during the 2017 legislative session, Senator Mark Obenshain introduced a bill to correct that discrepancy (SB1533). His bill was subsequently signed into law by the governor and, with little fanfare, went into effect on July 1, 2017.

With the passage of this bill, § 18.2-308.2, which is the code section denying convicted felons the right to possess firearms generally, now has a subsection C2 which reads:

C2. The prohibitions of subsection A shall not prohibit any person other than a person convicted of an act of violence as defined in § 19.2-297.1 or a violent felony as defined in subsection C of § 17.1-805 from possessing, transporting, or carrying (i) antique firearms or (ii) black powder in a quantity not exceeding five pounds if it is intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms. For the purposes of this subsection, “antique firearms” means any firearm described in subdivision 3 of the definition of “antique firearm” in subsection G of § 18.2-308.2:2.

So let’s break this down.  Does this mean that any felon can own any black powder firearm?  The answer is a resounding No!

There are two limitations on the new law that felons will still need to review carefully before rushing out to buy a black powder firearm:

Limitation #1)  Are they truly considered a non-violent felon under the new law?

In the new subsection we are given two code references to define ‘act of violence’ and ‘violent’ felony.

Under § 19.2-297.1, an “act of violence” means any one of the following crimes (whether convicted as a principal, accessory before the fact, or in conspiracy):

a. First and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter under Article 1 (§ 18.2-30 et seq.);

b. Mob-related felonies under Article 2 (§ 18.2-38 et seq.);

c. Any kidnapping or abduction felony under Article 3 (§ 18.2-47 et seq.);

d. Any malicious felonious assault or malicious bodily wounding under Article 4 (§ 18.2-51 et seq.);

e. Robbery under § 18.2-58 and carjacking under § 18.2-58.1;

f. Except as otherwise provided in § 18.2-67.5:2 or § 18.2-67.5:3, criminal sexual assault punishable as a felony under Article 7 (§ 18.2-61 et seq.); or

g. Arson in violation of § 18.2-77 when the structure burned was occupied or a Class 3 felony violation of § 18.2-79.

Under § 17.1-805, a ‘violent felony’ encompasses an incredible number of criminal offenses.  I will not enumerate them each individually here because it would render the article too long but I will point out that the list does contain offenses which a reasonable person might not consider to be violent, such as ‘damaging a railroad signal’.

If you are a convicted felon who has not had their firearm rights restored and are planning to purchase an ‘antique firearm’ based upon this new legislation, I would urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to review your convictions against this list before doing so.

Limitation #2) Does a particular black powder firearm meet the definition of ‘antique firearm’?

We see in the statutory language above that the definition of ‘antique firearm’ can be found in subsection G of § 18.2-308.2:2 which states that:

“Antique firearm” means:

1. Any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898;

2. Any replica of any firearm described in subdivision 1 of this definition if such replica (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition or (ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that is no longer manufactured in the United States and that is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade;

3. Any muzzle-loading rifle, muzzle-loading shotgun, or muzzle-loading pistol that is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and that cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subdivision, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon that incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm that is converted into a muzzle-loading weapon, or any muzzle-loading weapon that can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breech-block, or any combination thereof; or

4. Any curio or relic as defined in this subsection.

“Curios or relics” means firearms that are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

1. Firearms that were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, which use rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that is no longer manufactured in the United States and that is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade, but not including replicas thereof;

2. Firearms that are certified by the curator of a municipal, state, or federal museum that exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and

3. Any other firearms that derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event. Proof of qualification of a particular firearm under this category may be established by evidence of present value and evidence that like firearms are not available except as collectors’ items, or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary commercial channels is substantially less.

The section I have underlined above is of particular concern to me as an attorney.  There are a number of black powder firearms (mostly revolvers) which have commercially available drop-in conversion kits that allow them to fire fixed ammunition.  Under this definition, once such a conversion kit becomes commercially available for a given firearm it would no longer meet the definition and would still be barred from ownership and use.

Once again, I would caution those who are planning to take advantage of this change in the law to shop carefully when selecting their ‘antique firearm’.

Conclusion

This is a good bill that goes a long way toward correcting the discrepancy that previously existed between Virginia and federal law on this topic.  However, it requires those wishing to avail themselves of its benefits to do a significant amount of research beforehand.  Failure to do so could place said person in danger of a charge of ‘felon in possession’.

I will end by noting that, if you have a non-violent felony, I would encourage you to contact me for a free consultation to discuss petitioning the court for a full restoration of your firearm rights.

Posted in Black Powder Firearms, C&R, Criminal Law, Curio and Relic, Federal Law, Felons, Gun Rights Restoration, Prohibited Persons, Virginia Law | Comments Off on Non-violent felons in Virginia may now own certain black powder firearms

Can I purchase a firearm from a dealer if I have a misdemeanor drug possession arrest or conviction?

Occasionally I will receive a call from a thoroughly confused potential client who has been denied a firearms purchase and doesn’t understand why.

They were able to honestly answer all of the questions on the ATF Form 4473 in the negative.

They have never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

They have never been convicted of a felony.

They have never suffered from any mental health issues.

In fact, the only conviction on their record at all is a misdemeanor charge for possession of marijuana from 10 months ago.  They have not used marijuana, or any other illegal drugs since, and no longer consider themselves an ‘unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance‘.

So why did this conviction cause their purchase to be denied?  They honestly answered question 11e ‘No’ and, unlike other questions where there are further instructions later in the form, that is not the case with this question.

The answer can be found in 27 CFR § 478.11 which provides the following detailed guidance concerning the interpretation of the phrase ‘unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance‘ (emphasis added):

An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g.,

a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year;

multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year;

Note that under this definition, mere arrests (absent convictions) are sufficient to trigger a temporary purchase prohibition if more than one occurred during the last 5 years and at least one of them occurred within the 12 months preceding the date of the attempted purchase.

The due process and constitutional issues raised by such a broad definition are concerning but outside the scope of this article.

I should also point out that there are other disqualifying criteria in the regulation which I excluded as irrelevant to this particular topic but which a prospective buyer with any substance abuse history would be wise to read.

Ultimately there are two points to take away from this regulation:

  1.  The 4473 should be amended to include the criteria from 478.11 in an instructions section for question 11e; and
  2. If you have a misdemeanor conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year or multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year then you cannot purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.

Disclaimer:  As always, this information is presented for educational purposes only and does not give rise to an attorney-client relationship. Additionally, I am licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and this answer may not be appropriate for other jurisdictions.

Posted in 4473, Administrative Law, ATF, Background Checks, BATFE, Criminal Law, Federal Law, Prohibited Persons, Purchasing Firearms, Regulatory Rulemaking | Comments Off on Can I purchase a firearm from a dealer if I have a misdemeanor drug possession arrest or conviction?

May a gunsmith or manufacturer ship a firearm they have repaired directly to the owner?

A client recently asked this question.  He specifically wanted to know if the rules differ when the customer is in a different state than the manufacturer or gunsmith.

Given the myriad laws and regulations which govern both the transfer and shipment of firearms, it is hardly surprising that this is an area of some confusion for both gun owners and licensees.

I should also note that I will answer the question based upon federal and Virginia law.  Other states may have additional state-law requirements of which I am unaware.

Having said that, the ATF answers this exact question from a federal law perspective in their Top Ten Firearms Questions document (embedded below):

Download (PDF, 179KB)

The relevant question is # 7 (emphasis added):

The code section referenced is 18 USC § 922(a)(2)(A) which reads in part:

this paragraph … shall not be held to preclude a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector from returning a firearm or replacement firearm of the same kind and type to a person from whom it was received

This exception is also mentioned in the Code of Federal Regulations § 478.124(a) which states in part:

a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record the disposition made of a firearm delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received.

Posted in ATF, BATFE, Federal Law, FFL Issues, Gunsmithing, Interstate Firearm Transfers, Manufacturing, Shipping Firearms | Comments Off on May a gunsmith or manufacturer ship a firearm they have repaired directly to the owner?

May a machine shop allow customers to use their machinery to finish 80% lowers?

 

I was recently contacted by a firearms enthusiast who is also the owner of a machine shop.  He wanted to know if he could host an event where he opened his shop to a group of fellow shooters so that they could each finish an 80% lower.

He planned to show them how to operate each piece of machinery and then have them do the actual ‘manufacturing’ of the receiver. In his initial description, he categorized it as a ‘class’.

It sounded like a lot of fun and I really wish that I hadn’t been forced to be the bearer of bad news.  But such a setup would run afoul of ATF Ruling 2015-1 (embedded below).

Download (PDF, 69KB)

This ruling addressed two separate issues surrounding the manufacture of firearms by those not licensed as manufacturers.  The holding applicable to my client’s issue was the second one addressed (starting on the middle of page 5).

The holding from the ATF was “that a business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA by allowing persons to perform manufacturing processes on blanks or incomplete firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery, tools, or equipment.”

In layman’s terms, an individual may still manufacture his or her own firearm from an 80% lower.  But they must do it using their own machinery, tools, and equipment.

Posted in 80% Lower, ATF, ATF Ruling, BATFE, Manufacturing, Regulatory Rulemaking | Comments Off on May a machine shop allow customers to use their machinery to finish 80% lowers?

Is a charge eligible for expungement if it was dismissed following a deferred disposition?

Virginia offers the possibility of a ‘deferred disposition’ for first time offenders of a number of crimes, including most misdemeanor ‘property’ crimes.

In a deferred disposition case, the judge will:

a)  Hold that the facts are sufficient for a finding of guilt;

b)  Withhold adjudication until some future date;

c)  Place the defendant upon probation which imposes conditions and requirements on their behavior (for example this may include community service); and

d)  Dismiss the charge in the future upon successful completion of the probation.

Once such a charge is dismissed, the defendant may wish to petition the court for expungement.  But will such a petition be granted?

Unfortunately, the answer is “No.

*** UPDATE:  There is now a way in which certain charges resolved by deferred disposition may be made eligible for expungement ***

But why is the answer ‘no’ in most cases (even given the update linked above)?  In Com. v. Dotson, 661 S.E.2d 473, 276 Va. 278 (Va., 2008) the Virginia Supreme Court held that a criminal charge that was dismissed pursuant to a first offender statute cannot be expunged because “[a] defendant cannot be considered “innocent” as contemplated by the expungement statute when … the trial court finds that the evidence was sufficient to prove his or her guilt.

In Brown v. Com., 677 S.E.2d 220, 278 Va. 92 (Va., 2009), the Virginia Supreme Court further expanded upon this theme by holding that the key determining factor as to whether or not a dismissal falls within the purview of the expungement statute is whether “the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt” even if such a finding is withheld.

In summary, if a case is dismissed following a deferred disposition, expungement is generally not available (but do see the update linked above).


Disclaimer:  This information is presented for educational purposes only and does not give rise to an attorney-client relationship. Additionally, I am licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and this answer may not be appropriate for other states.

Posted in Criminal Law, Deferred Disposition, Expungement, First Offender, Virginia Law, Virginia Supreme Court | Comments Off on Is a charge eligible for expungement if it was dismissed following a deferred disposition?