Other State ATF confiscates firearms from owner with expunged domestic violent conviction

[Andy54Hawken]

View attachment 1791193

Good book...meh movie...horrible reality.
Andy

 

[Diamondback]

And a Leftist with a pecker has the potential to be a child moleser, but we don't automatically eunuch-ize them, now do we?

 

[sobo]

And a Leftist with a pecker has the potential to be a child moleser, but we don't automatically eunuch-ize them, now do we?

But we probably should...

 

[CamoDeafie]

And a Leftist with a pecker has the potential to be a child moleser, but we don't automatically eunuch-ize them, now do we?

What about people in church positions of power, "leaders" specifically... and cult members (particularly the Quiverfull families and similar extremely fundamentalist groups)? I'd think there's even odds that a pedo affiliates with either "side" and a greater odd that they're gonna be drawn to positions of power and access to children

 

[CamoDeafie]

On topic, I'd be happy if all the Federal executive agencies were to disappear, disbanded, people arrested, put away, laws authorizing these agencies to do the enforcement be repealed completely...

 

[sobo]

On topic, I'd be happy if all the Federal executive agencies were to disappear, disbanded, people arrested, put away, laws authorizing these agencies to do the enforcement be repealed completely...

I'd love to see that, too, for I would die a happy man.

Hope springs eternal...

 

[Saladfarmer]

If we got this guy... Presidente Miele
I love that he eliminated entire positions and deregulated and gave rights for self defense.. How long will it last...?

 

[Yarome]

An expungement does make it so it cannot be held against you, however, even if everyone is doing their job at the various levels... it can take years for the court order to "naturally" filter through and be updated in all the enforcement databases.

If your attorney is on the ball... It's generally recommended that a copy of the order and a record update request be sent directly to the various law enforcement agencies... state and federal.

I don't know about this guy, but I could easily see where his name might have popped simply because his record hadn't been updated in one of the various databases(?)

 

[hazencroftmatt]

I read up on the wall here in Oregon. Expungement is actually called a set aside here. Although the term is interchangeable. For a number of misdemeanors and felonies, it allows you to have all the records removed, and it does grant the right in general to buy firearms. However, there is a list of felonies, including things you would expect like murder, rape , and armed robbery that would be disqualification. That would include using a firearm against a person in someway.

I don't have access to this guys history, but it looks to me, since he never spent time in jail, and did a diversion, and since there is no sex crime or violent crime other than that listed, he should be able to get his gun rights back.

But people being people, maybe he was guilty of one of these crimes that does block him for life and just isn't talking about it because you and I can't check him because it's been expunged. Anyway, he's doing the right thing and I wish him luck.

 

[lucusloc]

I read up on the wall here in Oregon. Expungement is actually called a set aside here. Although the term is interchangeable. For a number of misdemeanors and felonies, it allows you to have all the records removed, and it does grant the right in general to buy firearms. However, there is a list of felonies, including things you would expect like murder, rape , and armed robbery that would be disqualification. That would include using a firearm against a person in someway.

I don't have access to this guys history, but it looks to me, since he never spent time in jail, and did a diversion, and since there is no sex crime or violent crime other than that listed, he should be able to get his gun rights back.

But people being people, maybe he was guilty of one of these crimes that does block him for life and just isn't talking about it because you and I can't check him because it's been expunged. Anyway, he's doing the right thing and I wish him luck.

Wait, if it was expunged is that legally the same as never having been convicted, so he could not be denied based on the grounds of the now expunged crime?

 

[FireArm]

You have to file for the expungement and it is only hidden from public view…,
LE , the courts system, etc still sees it on record tho…

that is not true, the state cannot see the records after expungement, even if they can its to be treated as if they cannot. private records checks will show past charges but state and my understand is federal level govt arent supposed to hold it against you after the expungment thats the entire purpose of getting charges expunged from your record.

 

[Yarome]

Wait, if it was expunged is that legally the same as never having been convicted, so he could not be denied based on the grounds of the now expunged crime?

It depends on the state you live in. IE., WA state doesn't allow record expungements. Only vacatur's.

So in WA... your record is no longer public, but still in the court databases. Treated as if no conviction occurred.

OR allows expungements. Your record of court action and conviction is removed entirely from the database.

But here's the rub. It can take time for the judges expungement or vacatur order to propagate through all the various court and LE databases. Both state and fed. That's assuming, of course that the various agencies are on the ball and updating their database as instructed by the courts. So in essence, it's not all that uncommon to have a record expunged, but the original conviction is still present on... say... NCIS where a BGC will kick back "denied' and have to go through an appeal.

Think of it like your credit report. A creditor reports a error to your credit report. You contact your creditor and they correct the mistake, your account is updated in good standing in their database, but that doesn't mean they will actually take steps to identify their error with the reporting agency... or at least maybe not in a "timely" manner. Even if they do, that doesn't necessarily mean the credit reporting agency will update your report... or at least in a timely manner, either. Now toss into the mix the other databases that "picked up" the bogus delinquency, added it to the records they maintain, but may or may not follow up to make the appropriate correction.

Years later, "some" particular company uses "some" credit reporting agency database service that was never accurately updated and... bada-bing! You get denied or only approved for a small amount of credit with an unfavorable interest rate.

A court record update can be quite similar. Anything detrimental seemingly goes in overnight, but updating it positively may require a great deal of time and patience. Prone to human laziness or flat out negligence somewhere along the data trail.


Like a credit reporting agency... the best option to speed the process is to contact the various agencies directly. Provide a certified copy of the judges order and a request to update your record accordingly. Keep track and follow up to ensure your record was appropriately updated.

Even then it cant take time. Someone I am close to went through that exact process in OR. His attorney sent notarized copies with a cover letter request to all the applicable agencies, however.... it still took the better part of a year before he record was completely clear again and able to pass a BGC.

Morale of the story: A judges expungement/vacatur order isn't "magic".

 

[lucusloc]

It depends on the state you live in. IE., WA state doesn't allow record expungements. Only vacatur's.

So in WA... your record is no longer public, but still in the court databases. Treated as if no conviction occurred.

OR allows expungements. Your record of court action and conviction is removed entirely from the database.

But here's the rub. It can take time for the judges expungement or vacatur order to propagate through all the various court and LE databases. Both state and fed. That's assuming, of course that the various agencies are on the ball and updating their database as instructed by the courts. So in essence, it's not all that uncommon to have a record expunged, but the original conviction is still present on... say... NCIS where a BGC will kick back "denied' and have to go through an appeal.

Think of it like your credit report. A creditor reports a error to your credit report. You contact your creditor and they correct the mistake, your account is updated in good standing in their database, but that doesn't mean they will actually take steps to identify their error with the reporting agency... or at least maybe not in a "timely" manner. Even if they do, that doesn't necessarily mean the credit reporting agency will update your report... or at least in a timely manner, either. Now toss into the mix the other databases that "picked up" the bogus delinquency, added it to the records they maintain, but may or may not follow up to make the appropriate correction.

Years later, "some" particular company uses "some" credit reporting agency database service that was never accurately updated and... bada-bing! You get denied or only approved for a small amount of credit with an unfavorable interest rate.

A court record update can be quite similar. Anything detrimental seemingly goes in overnight, but updating it positively may require a great deal of time and patience. Prone to human laziness or flat out negligence somewhere along the data trail.


Like a credit reporting agency... the best option to speed the process is to contact the various agencies directly. Provide a certified copy of the judges order and a request to update your record accordingly. Keep track and follow up to ensure your record was appropriately updated.

Even then it cant take time. Someone I am close to went through that exact process in OR. His attorney sent notarized copies with a cover letter request to all the applicable agencies, however.... it still took the better part of a year before he record was completely clear again and able to pass a BGC.

Morale of the story: A judges expungement/vacatur order isn't "magic".

Oh I get that. I was referring to cases where the agency in question says "we understand that you got the issue expunged, but we still know it happened and will hold it against you anyway." That seems to be what happened in the case cited above. The guy got his record expunged, the LEA decided they did not care and enforced prohibited persons provisions against him anyway based on the theory that he was "still a risk." Or in the comment I replied to where HM stated there were conviction types that an expungement would not restore gun rights for some reason. The confusion was that an expungement was supposed to be a removal of the record, so a LEA going "nah nah, we already know about the conviction and so can continue to deny you" seems to be counter to the law, no matter what kind of conviction was supposedly removed from the record. An expungement was supposed to be like saying you never did it (even if there is still a record of it somewhere), hence no grounds for denial on anything (once they know about the new record).

 

[Yarome]

Oh I get that. I was referring to cases where the agency in question says "we understand that you got the issue expunged, but we still know it happened and will hold it against you anyway." That seems to be what happened in the case cited above. The guy got his record expunged, the LEA decided they did not care and enforced prohibited persons provisions against him anyway based on the theory that he was "still a risk." Or in the comment I replied to where HM stated there were conviction types that an expungement would not restore gun rights for some reason. The confusion was that an expungement was supposed to be a removal of the record, so a LEA going "nah nah, we already know about the conviction and so can continue to deny you" seems to be counter to the law, no matter what kind of conviction was supposedly removed from the record. An expungement was supposed to be like saying you never did it (even if there is still a record of it somewhere), hence no grounds for denial on anything (once they know about the new record).

KK. I gotcha now.

Yeah. Sounds kind of bogus, or may still be dependent on the state. What state did this occur in?

IE., Each state has slightly different laws. Some... 2A rights are restored automatically with an expungement. Others... you can have 2A rights restored, but it's a 2 step separate petition and process after the expungement has been granted. Still others, 2A rights reinstatement isn't on the table for certain types of convictions... even though an expungement may be granted. That makes no sense whatsoever.

OR actually is one of the better states in that regard. Only certain types and levels of convictions can be expunged... and all original sentencing requirements must be fulfilled prior to petitioning the court (including any ordered restitution paid in full), but if a person qualifies and it's granted... all rights are auto restored. "It never happened".


If this case was/is in OR then yeah. Seriously wack and going the appeal route might be necessary. Possibly even a possibility to file a lawsuit... if that's his cup of tea.

 

[lucusloc]

Still others, 2A rights reinstatement isn't on the table for certain types of convictions... even though an expungement may be granted. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yep, this is exactly the part I was confused about. How is it an expungement if it still going to sit on your record so they can continue to deny you?

 

[Yarome]

Yep, this is exactly the part I was confused about. How is it an expungement if it still going to sit on your record so they can continue to deny you?

Probably the same reason packs of hot dogs have 10 wieners and buns come in packs of 8(?)



(Random bubblegum that makes no sense)

 

[Ura-Ki]

What's the point? The whole idea of expungement is the state is admitting you didn't really do something you were found guilty of, or your punishment was more then the crime allowed, the whole purpose being to restore your rights, and clear your records!

Makes about as much sense as a pardon, you might actually be guilty, but the state doesn't want to bother, or only certain entities believe in your guilt, but not others! Accepting a pardon is almost admitting guilt, and carries the same weight, but with out the bother of a trial and conviction, but still effects your record! Why accept when a trial could clear you, or not?

Just tossing that monkey a wrench!

 

[whiskeybill]

Anyone has the possibility to re-offend...just like anyone has the possibility to offend in the first place.
However.....

Just because one has a possibility or a could ...is not enough reason , by itself , to suspect that they will....
Andy

Watch the movie "Minority Report".

 

[CamoDeafie]

What's the point? The whole idea of expungement is the state is admitting you didn't really do something you were found guilty of, or your punishment was more then the crime allowed, the whole purpose being to restore your rights, and clear your records!

Makes about as much sense as a pardon, you might actually be guilty, but the state doesn't want to bother, or only certain entities believe in your guilt, but not others! Accepting a pardon is almost admitting guilt, and carries the same weight, but with out the bother of a trial and conviction, but still effects your record! Why accept when a trial could clear you, or not?

Just tossing that monkey a wrench!

Long before 1930s, the idea was that after a person served their sentence in full, they gained their rights and freedom. If they served lifetime sentences, or were executed, that was it. If pardoned, that was also it. But after the 30s, I want to say maybe 1938? There existed the idea of "once a criminal, always a criminal" and that prohibited persons class existed as a means of controlling who gets lawful access or not. Further codified in 1968 GCA, and Court Cases have repeatedly followed the same legal doctrine of "once a convicted criminal, no expectation of abiding laws".

 

[Stomper]

View attachment 1790859

She clearly only likes that drink and doesn't love it.