Can someone living with a felon keep a stun gun in the house in Utah? I'm looking to get a stun gun for personal safety reasons, but I'm not sure if I can without moving out, since I live with a convicted felon. I live in Southern Utah. What are the restrictions on felons' access to stun guns here?
The felon-possession law is Utah Code Ann. §76-10-503, which distinguishes Category I restricted person and Category II restricted person, a complex definitions that distinguish felons in general and violent felons, as defined at Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.5. In the case stricter case, the law says: (2) A Category I restricted person who intentionally or knowingly agrees, consents, offers, or arranges to purchase, transfer, possess, use, or have under the person's custody or control, or who intentionally or knowingly purchases, transfers, possesses, uses, or has under the person's custody or control: (a) any firearm is guilty of a second degree felony; or (b) any dangerous weapon other than a firearm is guilty of a third degree felony. and in the less strict case: (3) A Category II restricted person who intentionally or knowingly purchases, transfers, possesses, uses, or has under the person's custody or control: (a) any firearm is guilty of a third degree felony; or (b) any dangerous weapon other than a firearm is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. The law does not impose any restrictions unrestricted people. A &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; is defined in 76-10-501(6)(a) as &quot;a firearm; or an object that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury&quot;. They add a bit of subjectivity to their definition of &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; (i.e. &quot;we'll decide after the fact if the thing is a dangerous weapon&quot;), because: (b) The following factors are used in determining whether any object, other than a firearm, is a dangerous weapon: (i) the location and circumstances in which the object was used or possessed; (ii) the primary purpose for which the object was made; (iii) the character of the wound, if any, produced by the object's unlawful use; (iv) the manner in which the object was unlawfully used; (v) whether the manner in which the object is used or possessed constitutes a potential imminent threat to public safety; and (vi) the lawful purposes for which the object may be used. The felon could not have a stun gun with the intent to use it as a dangerous weapon, but it is not prohibited for a felon to have one to use on for legal purposes. There are contexts where stun guns are held to be dangerous weapons (United States v. Wallace, 800 F.2d 1509. Some states define stun guns as dangerous weapons, but that is not the case in Utah. It is also illegal for an unrestricted person to &quot;sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any firearm or dangerous weapon to any person, knowing that the recipient is&quot; a restricted person, and in cases of flagrant negligence the court might find that allowing such a person access to a dangerous weapon constituted &quot;transferring&quot; the weapon.
If you are in Florida, the notion that this is &quot;the only store around&quot; is simply not accurate. I doubt that there is any place in Florida that is not within 15-20 miles of at least two stores. In any case, the store is within its rights to ban you from the store even if you acted lawfully.
§Sec. 54-212 of the ordinance states (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, offer or display for sale, give, lend, transfer ownership of, acquire, carry or possess any assault weapon or large capacity magazine in Cook County So if the gun is an assault weapon, it is not legal to sell. That ends the legal inquiry. Beyond that, we can only conjecture as to possibilities, for example (1) you may be mistaken in your assessment of some particular firearm, (2) the authorities don't know yet so haven't taken action or (3) they do know and they have taken action. Your link did not lead to any obvious things that count as an assault weapon, perhaps you could be more specific.
There are venue restrictions where political speech is restricted, such as on military bases; content restrictions (transmitting classified information to the world); you cannot defraud by saying false things in order to get something, you cannot defame a person, you cannot speak obscenely (though it's hard to tell what counts as "obscenity"). You cannot appropriate other people's property in speaking (i.e. copyright law is a restriction on speech). The type of speech restrictions seem to pertain to speech and violence caused by such speech. A classic limitation is that you cannot speak "fighting words" (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568), which in 1942 meant calling someone a "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist", which the court characterized as "inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". The court subsequently refined its position on "provocative" speech. In Virginia v. Black 538 U.S. 343 a law against cross-burning was found to run afoul of the First Amendment as a restriction on political expression, but it would be fully consistent with The Constitution to outlaw "cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate". This states may "prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm". The current position is that you cannot incite to the imminent use of force. In Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444, the court stated that the First Amendment does not "permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". There are myriad laws against threats, for instance in Washington you may not "knowingly threaten(s) to cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person", and you can't do that ("knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person") in Ohio either. You can't get away with threatening "to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person" in California. This class of restrictions on speech seems to be quite robust. You may not induce panic in Ohio, e.g. shout "fire" in a theater -- I don't know if any other state has such a law.
It depends on your jurisdiction. Check the applicable laws; there's probably a section named something like "definitions" that gives the meaning of terms such as "loaded". For example, from RCW 9.41.010 (the "Terms defined" section of the "Firearms and Dangerous Weapons" chapter of the Washington State laws): (17) "Loaded" means: (a) There is a cartridge in the chamber of the firearm; (b) Cartridges are in a clip that is locked in place in the firearm; (c) There is a cartridge in the cylinder of the firearm, if the firearm is a revolver; (d) There is a cartridge in the tube or magazine that is inserted in the action; or (e) There is a ball in the barrel and the firearm is capped or primed if the firearm is a muzzle loader. So in Washington State, any of your examples 2-4 would be considered "loaded" for the purposes of firearms-related crimes.
New Hampshire is a "constitutional carry" state. The term "constitutional carry" is not a legal term but, rather, a catchphrase used to describe states that have adopted, either by statute or state constitution, that no permit is required to carry a gun either openly displayed or concealed. The phrase comes from a belief among many that the constitution is a permit to carry. New Hampshire passed its constitutional carry statute in 2017. Prior to this date it was permitted to carry a gun openly (not concealed) without a permit and had been legal to do so since the founding of the state. The Federal government originally passed The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which prohibited the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. This act was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995 (United States v. Lopez). Subsequently, the Federal government amended the law by adding the language, "...a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce..." This law has not been overturned and is still active. Here are two of the several exceptions to the Federal restriction: The individual is licensed to carry a firearm by the State in which the school zone is located The gun is unloaded and locked in a container There are other exceptions related to law enforcement officers, permission of the school, etc. These exceptions are independent; if one is licensed there is no need to unload the firearm and lock it in a container. The first exception listed, an individual licensed to carry a firearm by the State, generates a fair amount of controversy. Many states license individuals to carry concealed firearms within their borders by recognizing, or granting reciprocity, to the licensee's home state's firearms license. Many people believe this is a grant of a license by the State to the individual to carry a firearm. The ATF disagrees with this position and has taken a position that only licenses issued by the State in which the school is located are valid as it relates to the Federal school gun safety act. Further reading on this particular issue can be found in the paper, "Federalism Implications of Non-Recognition of Licensure Reciprocity Under the Gun-Free School Zones Act." The New Hampshire legislature has been working on a bill (as of June, 2019) prohibiting the carrying of firearms on school property. Governor Chris Sununu has previously indicated he would veto a series of gun-control bills headed to his desk via a spokesperson's statment, "the governor is not looking to make any changes to existing gun laws." The bill as written, prohibits the possession of firearms on school property, it does not prohibit firearm possession near school property. (The bill does appear to allow a firearm in an automobile being used to pick up or drop off a student at school.) The bottom-line for firearms around schools in New Hampshire: There is no state requirement to be licensed to carry a firearm openly or concealed There is no state prohibition from carrying firearms near a school There is a Federal prohibition from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school without a license There is no Federal requirement that a firearm carried near a school be concealed You can expect to be interviewed by law enforcement if you are openly-carrying firearms near a school. It is perfectly legal for law enforcement to approach you and engage in a voluntary interview. You can expect many such engagements if you make it a practice to openly carry firearms near a school. You can make people nervous if you are openly-carrying firearms generally, and you will absolutely make people nervous if you openly-carry firearms near a school.* New Hampshire still issues Pistol and Revolver licenses and one should have such a license if carrying a firearm within a school zone. As it relates to knives, New Hampshire is very liberal as its laws apply to knives. There are few, if any, restrictions on knives. In 2010, New Hampshire passed a law removing some of the restrictions on the types of knives that could be carried. *I do not have a specific citation to provide regarding the expectations of a law-enforcement interview when openly-carrying a firearm near a school. This statement comes from my experience as one who is licensed to teach concealed carry courses and firearms laws in Louisiana and Arizona. I am not an attorney and I am not licensed teach the laws of New Hampshire. I recommend speaking with a competent attorney who specializes in firearms law in New Hampshire to learn what is legal and, just as importantly, what is reasonable.
There are several elements working in your friend's favor. The first is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In an entrapment case, the police have recordings or documents claiming that the "girl" was underaged. If there is no such smoking gun from the (real) girl, the case (probably) would not be prosecuted in the U.S. He doesn't have to prove that she told him she was 18; "she" (or the police) has to prove that she told him she was "not." The second factor is "remoteness" in time, and distance. Two years after a U.S. state sent me a "nasty letter," I asked my lawyer if the state would ever come after me. He answered, "If they were going to do this, you would have heard further by now." The other factor, distance and cross border, (three countries: Turkey, the U.S., his home country) further militates against prosecution except for highly aggravating circumstances such as drug dealing, gambling, or sex for pay. A third factor is that your friend would not come close to qualifying as a "serious offender." This would be someone like a drug dealer, or the head of a "call girl" ring. The cops concentrate their effects on big "busts" like this that make their careers, not "small fry" like your friend. But of course they use the publicity from the big catches to scare everyone else. While there is no "guarantee" against "the worst possible consequences," the chances of them happening are similar to his getting hit by lightening, and less than his chances of being hit by a car crossing the street. No one stresses out about those chances. He shouldn't either. I am not a lawyer but I have done paralegal work in a law office.
As far as I understand, no. In Canada, everyone has the constitutional right to be free from any cruel or unusual punishment, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. If you're guilty of a crime, well then, you're guilty. You're either going to be tried in court (and if you were guilty of that crime, then you will probably be found guilty), or you will plead as such. Before being tried, you could try to plea bargain with the prosecutor: plead guilty and be sentenced to a lesser charge. Say you were charged with assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm. You thought that the punishment was cruel or unusual - and thought that the trial judge had made an error in the law. In this case, you can make an appeal to a higher court. There are also other things that can factor this: mitigating and aggravating circumstances. If many circumstances are mitigating, then it may make way for a lower punishment, and vice versa with aggravating circumstances, where punishment may be higher. Again, this is something where if something was erred, you can appeal to a higher court. However, just because you think a sentence is too long won't constitute cruel or unusual punishment. In R. vs Latimer, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that minimum sentences, even if within special circumstances, will not constitute cruel or unusual punishment, and be upheld. Originally, he had been sentenced only to one year, based on the recommendation of the jury. He had been charged with second-degree murder. The Supreme Court reinstated the default punishment: A life sentence with no eligibility of parole for ten years.