Interview of Gary B. Wells regarding Restoration of Firearm Possession Rights

MyLawCLE Continuing Attorney Professional Education Course. Every branch of government has become deeply embroiled in the area of firearm laws, leading to an exponential expansion of confusing and contradictory laws. Our clients can arrest and qualify as “prohibited persons” or “criminals” for conduct they never anticipated being illegal. Whether practicing family law, estate planning, administrative, or civil rights law, these changes in firearm laws can impact your practice and the advice you provide your clients. This course will cover how firearm laws impact these and other areas of law and help you identify some of the new potential issues for clients who own or ever plan to own a firearm. It also addresses some of the limited remedies available for those who are prohibited from owning firearms.

ProLawCLE Continuing Attorney Professional Education Course. The legal chasm between states supporting and state restricting gun rights continues to grow, creating serious pitfalls for anyone traveling to or through another state with a firearm. We have federal restrictions on transporting firearms, as well as federal restrictions on states wanting to restrict travel with firearms. We have state laws contradicting the federal restrictions and providing a multitude of their own restrictions on the type of firearms, firearms parts, ammunition, and prohibited locations. Differences also existed based on the form of travel, combined with the restrictions added by private carriers. While it is impossible to cover all of these restrictions and limitations in an hour, or even a week, this course addresses some of the most significant issues and variations between the federal and state laws. It addresses several of the important statutory, regulatory, and case laws that continue to create a quagmire of confusion and risk.

“Gary Wells on his excellent book, ‘Gun Laws, Federal Infringements Vol 1′” (Note: During the broadcast I responded to a question about firearms restoration after a domestic violence conviction. Such relief is largely unavailable in CA and TX (where I am licensed) because their state laws are inadequate to restore firearms rights under federal law (except through rarely-granted pardons by the governor). These limitations may not apply in other states. Also, the requirements for domestic violence firearm prohibitions are very fact specific, so the prohibition may or may not apply to a specific state conviction.)

ProLawCLE Continuing Attorney Professional Education Course. The exponential expansion of confusing firearm laws is potentially leading to our clients becoming “prohibited persons” and “criminals” for conduct they never anticipated being illegal. Whether practicing family law, estate planning, administrative, or civil rights law, these changes in firearm laws can impact your practice and the advice you provide your clients. This course will cover how firearm laws impact these and other areas of law and help prepare you to adequately advise your clients who own or ever plan to own a firearm, as well as the limited remedies available for those who are prohibited from owning firearms.

Texas already has procedures to address the risks posed by persons who are a significant danger to themselves or others. These existing laws are significantly more comprehensive than any “Red-Flag” law, better balance due process requirements, and are consistent with the simple fact that the risks lie with the person, not the firearm. Read more . . .

Regardless of the Constitutional infringement, the ATF’s notice of proposed rulemaking to classify bump-fire stocks as machineguns is outside the clear provisions of statutory law and involve forcing a square peg in a round hole. These efforts require the ATF to bypass legislation, re-write history, re-define terms beyond any reasonable definition, endlessly repeat false statements, make inconsistent arguments, and then illogically jump from the new erroneous definitions to derive the desired and forgone conclusion they were directed to reach. Read more . . .

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has claimed that the “Fix NICS Act” does not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans and that the “Fix NICS legislation is not a ‘gun control’ measure.” These statements require a redefinition of “gun control” not unlike “doublespeak.” Read more . . .

Because of the narrow victory of only one justice in both of those decisions, the subsequent death of the Justice Antonin Scalia, the potential this country may elect another president who will appoint several “progressive” justices to the Supreme Court, the limited protections afforded by the Second Amendment may soon disappear and the Supreme Court will allow Congress, states, and municipalities to ban the ownership and possession of firearms. The direction we can expect the Supreme Court to take with a new progressive appointee has already been outlined in the Heller and McDonald dissents. Read more . . .

Over the last few years firearm businesses and owners have been inundated by unconstitutional state laws blatantly infringing on the Second Amendment. The Republican-controlled legislature has prevented such lunacy at the federal level, providing the excuse for the executive branch to pursue its own unconstitutional measures, but in a different direction. Recognizing that the unlikelihood of achieving its goal of an outright firearms ban for now, successful federal efforts have been directed not to prohibiting firearms, but to banning those who can possess them. The ultimate goal is the same, ensuring that no citizen is legally qualified to own a firearm. Read more . . .