Handling or screening for crazy students

[Feed&Guns]

Seems strange that they wouldn't give instructors more liberty for discriminating. As an FFL, I'm REQUIRED to not sell a gun to someone if I get a gut feeling. If I even suspect that it's a straw purchase or that the person is being evasive, I'm not supposed to sell to them. Equally ironic is that the ATF is REQUIRED to give an FFL to someone if they don't specifically disqualify. My inspector said during my initial 4-hour interview that there are people they issue licenses to that they just know are going to be a problem based on the interview but they are required to issue them anyway. And, sure enough, on their first annual inspection the paperwork is a wreck, they can't account for certain guns, etc. But they had to issue the license.

Without the state giving us a website to check for people who are felons or adjudicated mentally deficient, they really put us in a box (and at risk) by telling us that we MUST teach a class to someone. I think the general discrimination issue is dumb also. I think people should be able to refuse anyone for any reason. We don't have systemic discrimination anymore. If someone doesn't want to teach to a "protected class", so be it! There are PLENTY of people who'd love to make that money. It's like the cake baker. Why in the hell does a lesbian couple want to force a conservative Christian to bake a cake when I'm sure there are plenty of gay bakers who own small businesses that feel betrayed by them going elsewhere. By the same token, if someone wanted to tell a black man, or a lesbian, or a person in a wheelchair "I don't serve your kind", give them my phone number! I'd be happy to make that money! As long as they meet the legal requirement and are safe and cooperative, I'd take them. But we shouldn't be shackled and forced to take people because then that gives them a leg to stand on. I might refuse someone for safety and they'll invariably (unless they're a white Christian male) find something to say they're protected and I'm discriminating.

Hell, I even almost kicked my own mother off the range for safety violations once (failure to follow commands + 180-rule if I hadn't grabbed her hand). If she wasn't my mother, she'd probably claim age and sex discrimination. She did decide she didn't have the discipline to be safe that day and quit shooting.

I'm sure most seasoned instructors have had the know-it-all client who won't listen and wants to do it their way also. Those might be dangerous in on a different level. Hopefully they at least have the fundamentals down. Annoying is one thing. Unsafe is another.

Hopefully DPS answers some of these concerns during class.

[VMI77]

Seems strange that they wouldn't give instructors more liberty for discriminating. As an FFL, I'm REQUIRED to not sell a gun to someone if I get a gut feeling. If I even suspect that it's a straw purchase or that the person is being evasive, I'm not supposed to sell to them. Equally ironic is that the ATF is REQUIRED to give an FFL to someone if they don't specifically disqualify. My inspector said during my initial 4-hour interview that there are people they issue licenses to that they just know are going to be a problem based on the interview but they are required to issue them anyway. And, sure enough, on their first annual inspection the paperwork is a wreck, they can't account for certain guns, etc. But they had to issue the license.

That strikes me as an equation for trouble....for you, not the ATF. Essentially, the ATF is saying THEY have to follow the law and don't get to follow their gut. However, the FFL is supposed to follow HIS "gut." Seems to me that leaves the FFL swinging in the wind if someone claims discrimination, since of course, "bigots" would just say they had a gut feeling they shouldn't sell to someone, so someone following his gut may be made to look dishonest if he can't articulate a justification beyond following his gut. How is the FFL supposed to justify his gut feeling if he comes under scrutiny? It may be unlikely that an FFL will get in a bind from that, but if I was and FFL, I wouldn't trust the ATF not to throw me under the bus if I did.

BTW, I agree with you about what SHOULD be the right of refusal.

[Feed&Guns]

Seems strange that they wouldn't give instructors more liberty for discriminating. As an FFL, I'm REQUIRED to not sell a gun to someone if I get a gut feeling. If I even suspect that it's a straw purchase or that the person is being evasive, I'm not supposed to sell to them. Equally ironic is that the ATF is REQUIRED to give an FFL to someone if they don't specifically disqualify. My inspector said during my initial 4-hour interview that there are people they issue licenses to that they just know are going to be a problem based on the interview but they are required to issue them anyway. And, sure enough, on their first annual inspection the paperwork is a wreck, they can't account for certain guns, etc. But they had to issue the license.

That strikes me as an equation for trouble....for you, not the ATF. Essentially, the ATF is saying THEY have to follow the law and don't get to follow their gut. However, the FFL is supposed to follow HIS "gut." Seems to me that leaves the FFL swinging in the wind if someone claims discrimination, since of course, "bigots" would just say they had a gut feeling they shouldn't sell to someone, so someone following his gut may be made to look dishonest if he can't articulate a justification beyond following his gut. How is the FFL supposed to justify his gut feeling if he comes under scrutiny? It may be unlikely that an FFL will get in a bind from that, but if I was and FFL, I wouldn't trust the ATF not to throw me under the bus if I did.

BTW, I agree with you about what SHOULD be the right of refusal.

You mean I should normally trust the government? :)

Case in point: I had a guy come in to look at a gun. He says he can't buy a gun (illegal immigrant maybe...hardly spoke English). Said he'd send his wife in who could buy a gun. That'd be a straw purchase. Hell, it might be a set up from the ATF.

Had another guy walk in all tatted up. Asked tons of questions about a good gun for home defense. He proceeded to tell me he was a felon and couldn't own a gun. Then he asked what would happen if his wife bought a gun and he had to touch it. Asked me all kinds of legal questions regarding exceptions to him as a felon not possessing a gun. Further insinuated that he had "a good reason" to have a gun in the house because what if some guys were looking for him and he thought his life was in danger. So should I sell it to his wife if she just says "I'm buying this for myself for home protection"? Nice conundrum.

Taking the second case as an example to the original concern, what if this white guy with a bunch of tats (to mean, not a protected class) comes in to sign up for the CHL class and doesn't tell me he's a felon. Maybe he wants to rent a gun too. Does it say "ex-con" on his TX DL? Does it say "no firearms"? Maybe DPS should do that for us. They already have a new thing that will put "veteran" on the license. They have restrictions like if you have to wear glasses to drive. Maybe they could put "crazy/ex-con" on the DLs too so it'd be defensible for an instructor/FFL to teach a class or rent a gun to a guy if they have no restrictions on their DL.

[VMI77]

Seems strange that they wouldn't give instructors more liberty for discriminating. As an FFL, I'm REQUIRED to not sell a gun to someone if I get a gut feeling. If I even suspect that it's a straw purchase or that the person is being evasive, I'm not supposed to sell to them. Equally ironic is that the ATF is REQUIRED to give an FFL to someone if they don't specifically disqualify. My inspector said during my initial 4-hour interview that there are people they issue licenses to that they just know are going to be a problem based on the interview but they are required to issue them anyway. And, sure enough, on their first annual inspection the paperwork is a wreck, they can't account for certain guns, etc. But they had to issue the license.

That strikes me as an equation for trouble....for you, not the ATF. Essentially, the ATF is saying THEY have to follow the law and don't get to follow their gut. However, the FFL is supposed to follow HIS "gut." Seems to me that leaves the FFL swinging in the wind if someone claims discrimination, since of course, "bigots" would just say they had a gut feeling they shouldn't sell to someone, so someone following his gut may be made to look dishonest if he can't articulate a justification beyond following his gut. How is the FFL supposed to justify his gut feeling if he comes under scrutiny? It may be unlikely that an FFL will get in a bind from that, but if I was and FFL, I wouldn't trust the ATF not to throw me under the bus if I did.

BTW, I agree with you about what SHOULD be the right of refusal.

You mean I should normally trust the government? :)

Case in point: I had a guy come in to look at a gun. He says he can't buy a gun (illegal immigrant maybe...hardly spoke English). Said he'd send his wife in who could buy a gun. That'd be a straw purchase. heck, it might be a set up from the ATF.

Had another guy walk in all tatted up. Asked tons of questions about a good gun for home defense. He proceeded to tell me he was a felon and couldn't own a gun. Then he asked what would happen if his wife bought a gun and he had to touch it. Asked me all kinds of legal questions regarding exceptions to him as a felon not possessing a gun. Further insinuated that he had "a good reason" to have a gun in the house because what if some guys were looking for him and he thought his life was in danger. So should I sell it to his wife if she just says "I'm buying this for myself for home protection"? Nice conundrum.

Taking the second case as an example to the original concern, what if this white guy with a bunch of tats (to mean, not a protected class) comes in to sign up for the CHL class and doesn't tell me he's a felon. Maybe he wants to rent a gun too. Does it say "ex-con" on his TX DL? Does it say "no firearms"? Maybe DPS should do that for us. They already have a new thing that will put "veteran" on the license. They have restrictions like if you have to wear glasses to drive. Maybe they could put "crazy/ex-con" on the DLs too so it'd be defensible for an instructor/FFL to teach a class or rent a gun to a guy if they have no restrictions on their DL.

The first case seems clear....admitted straw purchase....sale denied....though you'd have to recognize a woman who subsequently came into the store was this guy's wife. If she did and you didn't recognize her she'd be violating the law in any case.

A few thoughts on the second case. He could be an undercover ATF agent testing you, or an informer working for the ATF. Again, if a woman came in to buy a gun, how would you know it was this guy's wife? I don't know what the ATF instructions are....maybe their guidance is different....but if the wife is not a felon she has a right to own a gun if she possesses it in accordance with the law. I would think if you knew she was married to a felon, and you explained the conditions under which she had to keep the gun and she assured you she was going to follow the law you'd be OK (though I think I'd want something from her to that effect in writing). After all, if you deny the sale and she really wants the gun she'll just go somewhere else and keep her mouth shut.

The guy may not be a violent offender. Maybe he testified against other criminals and that's why they're after him. Maybe his felony was lying to the Feds. Those aren't excuses for breaking the law but the wife might not be trying to arm a violent offender. If someone is after him his wife may be in danger too...and she may have good reason for wanting a gun and has a right to defend herself. She just has to follow the law. OTOH, I keep reading what you wrote about this guy and I keep coming back to ATF agent or informer testing you. A felon knows he can't own or even touch a gun. If his intent was a criminal intent to acquire a gun, seems like he'd keep his felony status to himself. He could go buy a black powder revolver with no background check.

If you don't know someone is a felon and he takes your class, and in the process he touches a gun, he broke the law. When the CHL gets processed his record will come to light and he'll be denied. I don't know what the DPS is actually doing, but since he had to shoot a gun to pass the class, he has essentially testified to breaking the law and it seems like the DPS should go arrest and charge him.

[WildBill]

If you don't know someone is a felon and he takes your class, and in the process he touches a gun, he broke the law. When the CHL gets processed his record will come to light and he'll be denied. I don't know what the DPS is actually doing, but since he had to shoot a gun to pass the class, he has essentially testified to breaking the law and it seems like the DPS should go arrest and charge him.

I know that it is illegal for a felon to purchase or own a gun, but I wouldn't think touching or shooting a gun would be illegal.

[VMI77]

If you don't know someone is a felon and he takes your class, and in the process he touches a gun, he broke the law. When the CHL gets processed his record will come to light and he'll be denied. I don't know what the DPS is actually doing, but since he had to shoot a gun to pass the class, he has essentially testified to breaking the law and it seems like the DPS should go arrest and charge him.

I know that it is illegal for a felon to purchase or own a gun, but I wouldn't think touching or shooting a gun would be illegal.

It's actually not easy to find anything definitive, but from everything I've read, a felon handling or shooting a gun is considered to be in "constructive" possession. It's also illegal for a felon to possess ammunition even without a gun. I read a comment from a guy claiming to be a prosecutor who said he convicted a felon of firearm possession based on a photo of him holding a gun (photo take by the felon's sister). You could also be prosecuted for knowingly allowing a felon to access a gun, including handing your gun to a felon to shoot at the range or elsewhere. State laws vary....I've read that Texas law allows a felon to possess a gun five years after serving his sentence, but possession is still illegal under Federal law.

[Mike S]

"It's actually not easy to find anything definitive, but from everything I've read, a felon handling or shooting a gun is considered to be in "constructive" possession."

Actually, a felon handling or shooting a gun is in 'Possession'; the two prong test for Constructive Possession is 'proximity' and 'control'. Thus, if a felon had a gun next to them (or glove box, under the seat, etc) they could still be charged with Possession.

As to Texas law allowing a Felon to possess a firearm after 5 years, the last I read that section of the Penal Code it was limited to the Felon's own property. Thus, they could use it to hunt or for lawful defense, but only on their own property. Once they left their property they would be in violation. You are correct in that it would still be a violation of Federal Law.

Very respectfully,
Mike Schaeper

[mrvmax]

Seems strange that they wouldn't give instructors more liberty for discriminating. As an FFL, I'm REQUIRED to not sell a gun to someone if I get a gut feeling. If I even suspect that it's a straw purchase or that the person is being evasive, I'm not supposed to sell to them. Equally ironic is that the ATF is REQUIRED to give an FFL to someone if they don't specifically disqualify. My inspector said during my initial 4-hour interview that there are people they issue licenses to that they just know are going to be a problem based on the interview but they are required to issue them anyway. And, sure enough, on their first annual inspection the paperwork is a wreck, they can't account for certain guns, etc. But they had to issue the license.

That strikes me as an equation for trouble....for you, not the ATF. Essentially, the ATF is saying THEY have to follow the law and don't get to follow their gut. However, the FFL is supposed to follow HIS "gut." Seems to me that leaves the FFL swinging in the wind if someone claims discrimination, since of course, "bigots" would just say they had a gut feeling they shouldn't sell to someone, so someone following his gut may be made to look dishonest if he can't articulate a justification beyond following his gut. How is the FFL supposed to justify his gut feeling if he comes under scrutiny? It may be unlikely that an FFL will get in a bind from that, but if I was and FFL, I wouldn't trust the ATF not to throw me under the bus if I did.

BTW, I agree with you about what SHOULD be the right of refusal.

You mean I should normally trust the government? :)

Case in point: I had a guy come in to look at a gun. He says he can't buy a gun (illegal immigrant maybe...hardly spoke English). Said he'd send his wife in who could buy a gun. That'd be a straw purchase. heck, it might be a set up from the ATF.

Had another guy walk in all tatted up. Asked tons of questions about a good gun for home defense. He proceeded to tell me he was a felon and couldn't own a gun. Then he asked what would happen if his wife bought a gun and he had to touch it. Asked me all kinds of legal questions regarding exceptions to him as a felon not possessing a gun.

Strange that as an FFL you are answering legal questions. I always tell them to call the Houston ATF or ask their attorney if they have any questions about the legalities pertaining to firearms.

[Erick Drake]

Strange that as an FFL you are answering legal questions. I always tell them to call the Houston ATF or ask their attorney if they have any questions about the legalities pertaining to firearms.

[Javier730]

If you don't know someone is a felon and he takes your class, and in the process he touches a gun, he broke the law. When the CHL gets processed his record will come to light and he'll be denied. I don't know what the DPS is actually doing, but since he had to shoot a gun to pass the class, he has essentially testified to breaking the law and it seems like the DPS should go arrest and charge him.

I know that it is illegal for a felon to purchase or own a gun, but I wouldn't think touching or shooting a gun would be illegal.

A felon can touch, own or shoot a gun under certain circumstances. A felon can own a firearm after 5 years of being done with his sentence or parole for home defense. The felon would have to get the gun through a private sale or gift and Im guessing have it delivered to his/her home

Sec. 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Edited to change fish to gun.

[loktite]

A felon can touch, own or shoot a gun under certain circumstances. A felon can own a firearm after 5 years of being done with his sentence or parole for home defense. The felon would have to get the fish through a private same or gift and Im guessing have it delivered to his/her home

[Javier730]

A felon can touch, own or shoot a gun under certain circumstances. A felon can own a firearm after 5 years of being done with his sentence or parole for home defense. The felon would have to get the fish through a private same or gift and Im guessing have it delivered to his/her home

I meant gun. I think the darn swype app has it out for me.

[o b juan]

is the original poster A TEX CHL Instructor.

Could it be mon goose

[VMI77]

If you don't know someone is a felon and he takes your class, and in the process he touches a gun, he broke the law. When the CHL gets processed his record will come to light and he'll be denied. I don't know what the DPS is actually doing, but since he had to shoot a gun to pass the class, he has essentially testified to breaking the law and it seems like the DPS should go arrest and charge him.

I know that it is illegal for a felon to purchase or own a gun, but I wouldn't think touching or shooting a gun would be illegal.

A felon can touch, own or shoot a gun under certain circumstances. A felon can own a firearm after 5 years of being done with his sentence or parole for home defense. The felon would have to get the gun through a private sale or gift and Im guessing have it delivered to his/her home

Sec. 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Edited to change fish to gun.

That's Texas law.....as Mike S. pointed out above, they'd still be in violation of Federal Law.

[Javier730]

If you don't know someone is a felon and he takes your class, and in the process he touches a gun, he broke the law. When the CHL gets processed his record will come to light and he'll be denied. I don't know what the DPS is actually doing, but since he had to shoot a gun to pass the class, he has essentially testified to breaking the law and it seems like the DPS should go arrest and charge him.

I know that it is illegal for a felon to purchase or own a gun, but I wouldn't think touching or shooting a gun would be illegal.

A felon can touch, own or shoot a gun under certain circumstances. A felon can own a firearm after 5 years of being done with his sentence or parole for home defense. The felon would have to get the gun through a private sale or gift and Im guessing have it delivered to his/her home

Sec. 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Edited to change fish to gun.

That's Texas law.....as Mike S. pointed out above, they'd still be in violation of Federal Law.

Yup, just like all then shops that sale marijuana for medicinal purposes. Its legal in their state but still against federal law.