TexasCHLforum.com

A convicted felon cannot receive or possess a firearm other than an antique made before 1898 or reproduction of an antique that does not use modern cartridges.

See 18 usc 921(a)(16): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/u ... -000-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and 18 usc 922(g)(1) : http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also a felon cannot possess ammunition or body armor.

This is a federal law that is in force in the entire United States.

Basically a felon or other prohibited person can own certain muzzleloading weapons or possibly a cap-and-ball revolver. However, I am not a lawyer and am not qualified to offer legal advice.

- Jim

A .44 cap and ball revolver can still do the same job that many modern center fire revolvers do, quite nicely.

It's drawback is that if you can't do the job successfully in 6 shots, you will be in a bunch of trouble trying to reload.

AEA wrote:A .44 cap and ball revolver can still do the same job that many modern center fire revolvers do, quite nicely.

It's drawback is that if you can't do the job successfully in 6 shots, you will be in a bunch of trouble trying to reload.

Civil War era Cavalry solved that problem by carrying a BUNCH of revolvers.

glock27 wrote:just curious, i have a friend of my brother who just got a felony for a non violent crime (evading).

It doesn't have to be an issue that bars him or the rest of his life. If he gets his record expunged or sealed, then that removes the federal disability.

Haynes v. United States

So any sawed off shot gun or full auto should do the trick!

(Please don't take this seriously)

United States v. Freed

Anybody who plays games with this kind of garbage is going to have his sorry butt warming a steel bench in a federal pen for a decade or so.

- Jim

It is a risk but if it is a matter of life and death, and it would defiantly have to be, spending a few years in a federal prison so the felon can live the rest of his/or her life seems worth the risk to me. Prison may be bad but considering the alternative...

While s/he is waiting on that record to be sealed or expunged:
- Crossbow
- Compound bow
- Bowie knife
- Kukri
- Machete
- Sword
- Baseball bat
- Cane

. . . add martial arts training where convenient.

This is a good point.

The choice is not between defending oneself with a firearm and being dead. That is a false dichotomy.

There are plenty of weapons that a convicted felon can legally own and use that are effective on someone's own territory.

Federal weapons charges are nothing to take chances with. There's no leniency in prosecution, nothing similar to deferred adjudication, no parole, and no chance of a pardon in the federal system for someone who is not politically connected. Also prison is not a safe place, even for prisoners who are too mean or ugly to end up warming another prisoner's bunk.

Also a burglar alarm is essential. If the person can't afford monthly monitoring fees, the parts for a decent alarm cost somewhere around $100 at Radio Shack and probably much cheaper on eBay. That goes along with guidelines you can find on thousands of web sites about strong doors, good locks, outdoor lighting, etc.

- Jim

Good points. I have taken all the same precautions at the house. When we are inside or in the yard, all doors are locked. Patrol the grounds and check doors before bed. The guns in each room ae for IF they get in. I couldn't imagine not being able to legally defend my family.

Isn't there a law in Texas that allows felons to keep 1 long gun in their house after 5 years from release or the end of their probation?

Yes, there is; but it does no good if the feds get involved. It's like other state laws that allow something prohibited by federal law, such as medical marijuana.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Yes, there is; but it does no good if the feds get involved. It's like other state laws that allow something prohibited by federal law, such as medical marijuana.

- Jim

Seems the federal gov't is overstepping its bounds.
Isn't the first time the constitution has been pushed to the side though.

Apophis wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Yes, there is; but it does no good if the feds get involved. It's like other state laws that allow something prohibited by federal law, such as medical marijuana.

- Jim

Seems the federal gov't is overstepping its bounds.
Isn't the first time the constitution has been pushed to the side though.

The supremacy clause is clear, federal law trumps state law every time.