SCOTUS says okay for convicted felon to designate someone to transfer guns

[KyJim]

In Henderson v. U.S. today the Supreme Court said it was within the district court's equitable powers to allow a convicted felon who lawfully surrendered his guns before conviction to designate a specific person to hold or sell the guns. However, the felon can have absolutely no control once in the hands of the designee. Otherwise, the felon would be in constructive possession of the firearms which is unlawful. The court said the designated person did not necessarily have to be a FFL if the district court was satisfied the person would not allow the felon any control over the firearms. The court said the recipient did not have to necessarily sell the guns and that it might be possible to hold them in trust for the children of the felon. Again, the district court would have discretion to insure the felon could not later influence the designated recipient of the guns.

Opinion is at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1487_l6gn.pdf

The Supreme Court remanded the case for the lower courts to re-assess Henderson's proposed disposition.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The end of the world is upon us! Common sense in a Supreme Court decision!

It is astonishing to me that this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court before it could be established that a person's personal property remains his personal propery upon his conviction for a felony.

 

[JimDandy]

I'm not sure I agree. Why can't he have influence over who gets them?

This sounds like they just gave the designated person license to steal. Say I get nominated as someone's designated person, it appears I don't actually HAVE to do anything the convicted felon wants done with them. I can just plain keep them.

The way I'm reading the summary, it seems like the Supreme Court just decided to let someone else steal (or at least have a chance to) the convicted felon's property for a while instead of the government.

 

[Doyle]

I'm not sure I agree. Why can't he have influence over who gets them?

Because this was not a "firearms" case. This whole case was a "property" issue. The property just happened to be firearms but it could have been just about anything. This country has long existed on the premise that property could not just be taken away without both due process and proper compensation. In this case, the convicted man was no longer legally able to own firearms but there was no court proceeding that justified the state's taking of the property (firearms) without compensation.

I don't see anything in the decision that takes away this person's right to choose who gets to dispose of the property.

 

[JimDandy]

The court said the recipient did not have to necessarily sell the guns and that it might be possible to hold them in trust for the children of the felon. Again, the district court would have discretion to insure the felon could not later influence the designated recipient of the guns.

So with a wink and a nudge from the District court, I don't have to sell the firearms, and I don't have to listen when the convicted felon complains I don't send them where he wanted them in the first place.

I'm not reading he doesn't get to choose who does it, I'm reading he can't choose HOW they do it. According to the summary given he gets to pick someone, and then pray like hell they do what he wanted with them.

 

[Evan Thomas]

The decision grants the felon the power to designate the person who takes possession of the guns on his behalf. If he makes a bad decision, that's on him, not on the courts. If I were ever in that position, I would either put the decision in the hands of my attorney or designate someone else via a power of attorney; in either case, he or she would have some legal responsibility to act in my interest.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Seems like a reasonable decision to me. Until now, I think your guns were confiscated with no remuneration or recourse, correct me if I'm wrong.

Now you get to exercise some control over your firearms, which is part and parcel of 'possession' and designate either the sale through an agent of your choice, transfer to a relative or friend, or transfer to a trust for future conveyance to heirs.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm not reading he doesn't get to choose who does it, I'm reading he can't choose HOW they do it. According to the summary given he gets to pick someone, and then pray like hell they do what he wanted with them....

Don't just read the summary. Read the opinion. Here's exactly what the Court says (Henderson, slip op at 7 -- 8, emphasis added):

...a court facing a motion like Henderson’s may approve the transfer of guns consistently with §922(g) if, but only if, that disposition prevents the felon from later exercising control over those weapons, so that he could either use them or tell someone else how to do so. One way to ensure that result, as the Government notes, is to order that the guns be turned over to a firearms dealer, himself independent of the felon’s control, for subsequent sale on the open market. See, e.g., United States v. Zaleski, 686 F. 3d 90, 92–94 (CA2 2012). Indeed, we can see no reason, absent exceptional circumstances, to disapprove a felon’s motion for such a sale, whether or not he has picked the vendor. That option, however, is not the only one available under §922(g). A court may also grant a felon’s request to transfer his guns to a person who expects to maintain custody of them, so long as the recipient will not allow the felon to exert any influence over their use. In considering such a motion, the court may properly seek certain assurances: for example, it may ask the proposed transferee to promise to keep the guns away from the felon, and to acknowledge that allowing him to use them would aid and abet a §922(g) violation. See id., at 94; United States v. Miller, 588 F. 3d 418, 420 (CA7 2009). Even such a pledge, of course, might fail to provide an adequate safeguard, and a court should then disapprove the transfer. See, e.g., State v. Fadness, 363 Mont. 322, 341–342, 268 P. 3d 17, 30 (2012) (upholding a trial court’s finding that the assurances given by a felon’s parents were not credible). But when a court is satisfied that a felon will not retain control over his guns, §922(g) does not apply, and the court has equitable power to accommodate the felon’s request….

 

[KyJim]

In this case, the convicted man was no longer legally able to own firearms but there was no court proceeding that justified the state's taking of the property (firearms) without compensation.

Actually, no, and I'm not being picky. The Supreme Court said ownership consists of a bundle of rights and a convicted felon could not possess the firearms. While right of possession is a big part of the ownership bundle, it's not all of it. Thus, a felon may continue to have other ownership rights, short of possession (actual or constructive).

 

[Doyle]

KyJim, yes I agree he has lost his possessive rights. But, I think this conversation really centers on "financial" rights. In the plaintiff's case, he wanted the money from the sale of the firearms to go to him (or his benefit) and not the state.

 

[KyJim]

"Financial rights," "ownership," and "possession" all mean different things. Some of the recent restrictive state laws on transfers relate to possession, not ownership and not financial rights. In this context, precise terms are very important.