Home / Crime / Felon Arrested For Trying To Sell A Gun At A Gun Show
Print Friendly and PDF

Felon Arrested For Trying To Sell A Gun At A Gun Show

Written by John Odermatt on March 8, 2014

The phrase convicted felon makes most people’s ears perk up. There is a stigma associated with those that have been convicted of a felony crime. Without any background knowledge of the nature of the felony conviction or the atmosphere the crime took place, the word “felon” has the ability to define a person.

The truth of the matter is not all felons are created equally. Some felons were convicted of violent crimes and some don’t have a violent bone in their bodies. Some of the convictions occurred more than 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. Yet in most states they are treated the same and none are permitted to own modern firearms.

The Oklahoma City police arrested a felon last weekend at a gun show because he was attempting to sell a gun. The officers uncovered his record as a convicted felon while completing a background check. KOCO.com has the report.

Police said Richard Britt was attempting to sell an H&K P30 handgun at the show. Off-duty Oklahoma City police officers who we working security for the gun show had talked to Britt and discovered he was a convicted felon. Britt was convicted previously of second-degree burglary and receiving or concealing stolen property.

According to the police report, an officer asked Britt if he knew he was a convicted felon and could not have a firearm.

“Yea I was only imprisoned for nine and a half months, and it was so long that I thought they had pardoned it,” Britt reportedly told the officer. Britt was convicted in 1985.

Thirty years is a long time to go without being permitted by the State the Second Amendment right to own a modern firearm. In a previous Felony Friday entry, “Should Felons Have Second Amendment Rights Restored Upon Release?”, I questioned if individuals can truly be considered free if they are not permitted to defend themselves with equal force.

Continue Reading on lionsofliberty.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

66 thoughts on “Felon Arrested For Trying To Sell A Gun At A Gun Show

  1. This is unreal. I thought they wanted guns out of the hands of felons. And they are going to arrest a felon for selling his gun? What did they expect him to do, give it away?

  2. Phillip the Bruce says:

    The 2nd Amendment, which does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, only acknowledges that, as humans, we have that right, makes no exception for felons (or anyone else). It states straightforwardly that the right "shall not be infringed."

  3. First they came for the criminals but I said nothing because I was not a criminal . . .

  4. Let's all remember until 1968 on release from jail you got your rights back to bear arms. IN 1968 OUR GOVERNMENT passed the UNCONSTITUTIONAL 1968 GUN ACT!

  5. oldgringo says:

    It goes much deeper than this…If you are convicted of domestic violence you can not own a gun…If you have failed to pay a fine for not having your dog on a leash..You can not own a gun…And the list goes on and on!…My take is…If a person has served his time in a correctional facility…And has resume the right to vote…Then he also should resume his right of the second amendment…Should he be foolish enough to commit a crime with a gun after his release…It's back to the hoot house with a stiffer sentenence!

  6. oldgringo says:

    Ahmen…That is exactly where we are headed…Look at Connecticutt…Law makers are now making felons out of otherwise law abiding citizens…Shades of Nazism and Communism is on the rise within the Democratic Party!

  7. At times it is hard to tell the criminal from the politician.

  8. I would rather that felon, of 30 years ago, have a gun, than most cops.
    Cops are violent and dangerous and reckless,
    and have have little or no respect for citizens.
    50% of all cops will lie about anything,
    and the other 50% will back them up.
    Good cops ? Not in this day and age ?
    That was long, long ago.

  9. “Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” –- Aaron Zelmanm

  10. SuperDave2 says:

    Or the Policeman!

  11. The feds are also trying to reclassify veterans as mentally disturbed so it can deny their 2nd Amendment right, because the last thing Washington wants is a TRAINED and EXPERIENCED fighting force that won't obey its orders without question and might turn their weapons around when told to fire on US civilians.

  12. many of us in connecticutt are not buying into to that stupid law and are doing are own thing ! stuff that law where the sun does not shine !

  13. being disarmed in the face of a tryant is a mistake a free people get to make—only once !

  14. Since when do they run background on the seller?

  15. The Democratic party has been infiltrated by Communist and other enemy's of the U.S.

  16. rwp24382 says:

    The dummy assumed he was pardoned. You may have served your time and was released early, but it doesn't mean you were pardoned or your rights were restored. The man should have checked with a lawyer before purchasing a gun. The H&K pistol he had isn't 30 years old, I don't think. This means he probably purchased the weapon either before background checks were established or he bought it used from someone. Either way, the guy was not supposed to own or be in possession of a gun legally. If you are a felon, you don't get your rights back unless you petition the court. The man may have a clean record for those many years, but was not allowed to vote until his rights had been restored. Most felons know this. To assume he could go out and buy a firearm without checking into the matter further, was an act of stupidity. I do think it's bad that a felon is unable to defend himself in a situation when needed, but that is the reason for denying the rights of a felon. It is supposed to be a deterrent to committing a crime. You are to know up front that you pay for your doing wrong

  17. Miguel , in Canada you are a "Subject ", that is : you do what you are told . Here in America we are Free People in a Free Nation , that is : WE THE PEOPLE do not work for the Gov. . That is the Difference between your Canada and My America .
    You have Crimes too just like every Nation . I suggest you Inform yourself about a " Subject " and a "Free Man " .
    God Bless Always. " Freedom is not Free " and you don`t know that either .

  18. Texas Mad says:

    You have the right to that opinion, but that does not make your opinion fact, sir. I've volunteered long and hard beside many law enforcement officers. Good people who risk their lives every day to protect people who say jerk things like this.

  19. Jeanne Stotler says:

    True, one shot an unarmed teen already subdued by 2 other cops, I have retired LEO's in family that NEVER fired their gun in line of duty, seems from reports I've read, these cops are firing w/o provocation, surely killing a neighbors lab, that was tied in his own yard, is not called for, today it's scarry

  20. Jeanne Stotler says:

    Our Constitution gives us the right to DEFEND OUR PROPERTY, this is why we are not subjects of English, Spanish or French crowns.

  21. Gill O’Teen says:

    Horse feathers. If Canada were not adjacent to the United States and reliant on it for protection, it would be no better than France – willing to surrender its essential liberty for the illusion of temporary prosperity. Think Canada all by itself could resist an invasion from its neighbor across the pole?

    By the way, using 2011 numbers, Canada's homicide rate was 1.6 per 100,000 people, 554 in all. In the United States, it was 4.7 per 100,000 people, 14,612 in all. 14,612 ÷ 554 = 26.375 and 4.7 ÷ 1.6 is just a shade under 3. Of course, if Canadians cannot get guns, they are not going to use them. However, people are still getting murdered up there.

    One thing you loonie liberals always overlook, is how many of those Canadian murders (and other crimes) could have been prevented if the victims had guns? This is not a statistic that is kept other than anecdotally, which makes it easy to neglect.

    I will grant you that based on murder rate alone, the USA seems more violent than the frigid north. However, it is that Yankee willingness to fight that saved you all from becoming a German Colony back in the 40s.

    By the way, I notice that most of the Nations of Islam have lower murder rates than does Canada. That does not mean Sharia Law is the path to liberty and prosperity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by

  22. As a Canadian I have to call out the misinformation and impression about Canadian gun laws that Miguel sets forth. Firearms are classified into prohibited, restricted and non-restricted categories in Canada. From 1995 on, all firearms were required to be registered, but in April 2012 the requirement to register non-restricted firearms was dropped in every province and territory, except for Quebec. Miguel's comment about no good coming from the USA allowing ordinary citizens from owning firearms is absolutely clueless about the US context of criminal activity in "gun free" zones.

  23. Incarceration is big business in America (slave labor wages, no overhead, no insurance or benefits required). It's not just punching out license plates anymore. Also, with privatization of the prison system, states now have signed contracts with companies who run the facilities for profit that require states to deliver a minimum percentage of prison beds filled, so judges have economic incentives to send more Americans to the hoosegow for ever more victim-less crimes.

  24. Darylj46 says:

    Great for you and I hope there are thousand upon thousands right along with ya. Last I read that there were around 100,000 and wish it was more.

  25. Coldcowboy says:

    Hell, their all one in the same.

  26. ken1lutheran says:

    The category "felon" is wildly overbroad. There is no state interest in preventing an accountant who cooked the books or a lawyer who got into his trust funds from having a gun. They're felons, but their ownership of a gun presents no public threat.

    A simple hypothetical: Who is more dangerous if he gets a gun in his hands? Person A is an accountant who filed a fraudulent tax return for a client ten years ago. He was convicted, spent two years in federal pen, and, since he got out, has committed no offense. Person B has been identified as a gang member. He has five assault and battery convictions, but because none of them were with a weapon, those are misdemeanors, and he has no felony conviction. Which person should be prevented from owning a gun?

  27. A man with a gun is a citizen.
    A man WITHOUT a gun is a SUBJECT.

  28. bulldurham48 says:

    Dumb and dumber are here again. Sorry if 30 years is a long time, but was it the 1st offence? No ,so right off the person proved that they could not be trusted period. Felons cannot possess weapons because they are criminals that cannot be trusted to conduct themselves in a normal civilized manner. Why should we be dumb enough to give them the right to possess a weapon that they could kill with? Sorry, felons are felons for a real reason, and 2nd time offenders are even worse, regardless of the crime. Thats why it should be 2 strikes {separate felony convictions } an you in for life. You have proven that you cannot live in a normal world with normal people, and deserve to be kept separate from others and un- armed as a safe guard to the rest of us.

  29. I agree. Anyone convicted of a non-violent crime (felony) should, once they have served their time and paid the price for their actions, be allowed to own a firearm. If it is considered they have paid the price to society the punishment should be ended. Otherwise it is a life sentence. If however, the crime they were convicted of was using a gun the penalty should stay! We must all face the reality that some people cannot be trusted. Just use the president as an example!

  30. Scott L. says:

    It's the new America. In most states, you're a felon, if you got a DWI.

  31. MOST of the time, the politician is the criminal. THERE are a few good exceptions to this. BUT if he is a politician, he has to prove he is not a criminal::: not just words, but actions

  32. Guy Smith says:

    This discussion is completely irrelevant in today's political climate. The federal government, and at least a dozen state governments are looking for ways to strip us of our Constitutional rights. They have no interest whatsoever in restoring them. Texas may be the only state in which a person, who has not been in trouble with the law for a number of years after completion of a felony prison sentence, is not violating state law by owning a gun. Unfortunately, he is still violating federal law. The federal government and other states, should adopt the Texas law.

  33. RicknRedmond says:

    He knew he was a convicted felon and that he could not lawfully have a gun. What did he expect?

  34. Read the part that says "they uncovered his record while doing a background check." Liberals will overlook that part and just repeat the headline that a felon was arrested at a gun show for trying to sell a gun. Duh! That's why they have background checks to stop felons from buying guns at the gun shows.

  35. Danny Weakland says:

    You are wrong about ins. They get the best medical care your money can buy. Including sex change operations.

  36. Thank you!

  37. Does anyone know why my post on Canada and gun control, and subsequent replies got deleted? I thought Gary North would embrace polite reasonable expressions and discussions from all his loyal readers, even if they disagree with his own?

  38. Once the Felon has severed his time and been released from parole or probation .all rights should be restored .. If the felon is to dangerous to have his right restored keep them in prison…

  39. I think possibly all of the assistants hired to explain Obama care are felons. They say they didn't check. Do you think they furnish them with armed security? Don't you know that most of the appointees aere frelons, sucha as Van Jones. They must really like felons as long as they work for them. I would rather trust a felon than someone who says they should not have to show proper ID to vote., I would say the felon is much more intelligent and I say the other is telling a lie.

  40. Think that the vaunted minions of the "ATF", more correctly the BATFE and DOJ will spring into action here? Possibly they will, though none have been prosecuted over the serious criminality involved in the ATF/DOJ/White House Operation Fast and Furious, a situation that might strike some as strange.

  41. BS you've lost it, sounds like quit the power trip. You are exactly what the article is about !!!! The stereo typing of a Felon. Besides the fact just because some one has convicted of a felony doesn't mean there Violante not does it mean they loose the right to defend them selves. People all over the country are now felons because the once legal ar15 or a high capacity magazine is not anymore. yeah what terrible people but from the sounds of your tone I'm sure your just fine with that too.
    You sound like a gun hatter from the get go
    What a pathetic outlook

  42. Exactly

  43. Rattlerjake says:

    Lets also remember that murderers and violent criminals were put to death and there wasn't any need for them to have guns! But, because libturds don't want their voters executed we turn them loose.

  44. I hear alot of crap here. That is what it is. You want to have your rights left alone but you are more than willing to take someone elses rights. You are as bad as the crooks in washington. I guess most of you can not read. I know you did not read The Constitution. What part of shall not be infringed do you idiots not understand? Many a felon in old made good law enforcement officers. Sound like a bunch of hypicrites. The U.S. Constitution in the part about the militia says we are all to own a gun. The same with most state constitutions. This crap of take his rights but leave mine alone has to stop.

  45. He was trying to SELL a gun! I know of no state law that requires a backgr
    ound check for selling a gun, at least not yet.

  46. Something isn't right about this story, Since when do you need a background check to SELL a gun?

  47. WisdomSeeker says:

    Our guns are being taken away with Progressive Incrementalism. More and more laws inacted to restrict legal gun ownership until the only guns allowed are the Government and those protecting the Progressives.

  48. True Dat ! We live in massive illusions . In fact many of the worse criminals are politicians ? Ponder that because it is absolutely true !

  49. My point exactly. It costs the government nothing, yet these prison industries compete with (and can always undersell) the outside companies making the same product who must bear all those costs of doing business.

  50. Will someone please bail out this poor victim Richard Britt in Oklahoma city ?? This report is like all the news trying to evoke
    fury in the population, so the ETs can suck our loosh-energy from everyone who reads this garbage. Yes, garbage it is when
    cops can do whatever they please, enforcing idiotic unconstitutional laws of the beaurocratic books nilly willy, just to fill the
    privat prisons. I guess Obamination will fire up the economy via prison growth nationwide.

  51. Lest you forget, most violent criminals are "conservatives."

  52. So, it's okay for women's rights to be taken away, but DAMN IT ALL IF GUN RIGHTS ARE TOUCHED.

    Hypocrites, every last Republican.

    FYI, I'm willing to bet you can't name a single "gun law" that's affected your ownership of a firearm.

  53. That's the Republican mantra – "Who cares about you? I've got mine."

  54. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    The most sensible way the 2nd Amendment is interpreted is that: a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and shall not be infringed, and said militia shall be formed of people who have the right to keep and bear arms. Those extra commas make the whole thing sound super weird and changes the entire meaning of the sentence. It CERTAINLY does not mean that every single US Citizen has the unrestricted right to own whatever the fuck firearm they want. THAT is just lunacy. If you don't agree, why don't you just head over to the local penitentiary and hand out some guns to the convicts there – see what happens. Maybe you'll change your mind.

    Even if it's interpreted differently, it says "A WELL-REGULATED militia." I can guarantee that all these right-wing gun nuts are absolutely not well-regulated, even in the smallest sense. It should not be harder to vote than to own a gun. It should not be harder to get a life-saving abortion than to own a gun. The fact that it is is pretty disgusting.

  55. Glo Baum says:

    It is not only the Democratic Party, the Republican Party are not to be trusted when it comes to our right to own a gun, Republicans ARE NOT our friend either…

  56. If they paid their debt to society then they should have ALL their rights restored or you are discriminating against then. Denying their right to self protection under our Second Amendment.

  57. DoctorBob says:

    Let us not forget that the 1968 Gun Control Act was sponsored by that champion of individual freedoms and liberties, Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy! He's long gone to worm food, but the damage he did with that act lives on… and on…. and on…. My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

  58. 1baronrichsnot1 says:

    Bruce! Yes it does! the 2nd amendment does just that, it is in the "bill of rights", the first 10 amendments are the bill of rights!

  59. 1baronrichsnot1 says:

    Two things shane…1. Abortion is being used as birth control, not life saving by any means.2.You installed more words in the second amendment that aren't there! "well regulated, doesn't mean gov't control over anyone "Said militia shall be formed of people who have the right to keep and bear arms" isn't in there at all! I believe the gov't is after all firearms anyway, just like the rest of the communist world, why, because they are afraid of being shot for their malfeasance, crushing of the constitution, lieing, breaking of the laws, cronyism, fascism, and theft. A felon is a felon! 1968 laws apply to who can own a gun! Not who can use a gun! He can still use a gun he doesn't own for his protection, if he borrows one, this guy was trying to sell one, does that mean he owns it?

  60. You might want to actually check your facts on that one.

  61. The democrat party is communist and racist.

  62. They can not own a gun because they lost the civil right by being convicted of a felony crime. After completing their sentence and showing that they can live a proper and civil life they can apply to the governor to get their civil right back. BTW, that is also why they are not eligible to vote until they get their rights back.

  63. You can add Indiana to the list that will consider and actually reinstate a person's rights if they can show that they deserve them returned. It is by no means a rubber stamp and there are steep hurdles to overcome, but it can be done. I have had two friend who have over come and received their rights back.

  64. I believe you missed the part about those being the civil rights of citizens. When you are convisted of a felony you lose your civil rights. After you serve your time and what ever other requirements you are sentenced to and you have proven that you can live a law abiding civil life you can apply to the govenor to have your rights reinstated. This includes your right to vote. This is not a new issue and I do not see this as unreasonable. I don't know about all states, but I do know that in Indiana, Georgia, and I believe Texas the process not only exists but is actually used. I know for a fact that it does in Indiana.

  65. I believe you missed the part about those being the civil rights of citizens. When you are convisted of a felony you lose your civil rights. After you serve your time and what ever other requirements you are sentenced to and you have proven that you can live a law abiding civil life you can apply to the govenor to have your rights reinstated. This includes your right to vote. This is not a new issue and I do not see this as unreasonable. I don't know about all states, but I do know that in Indiana, Georgia, and I believe Texas the process not only exists but is actually used. I know for a fact that it does in Indiana. If you don't want to lose your rights then don't do the crime.

  66. ken1lutheran says:

    You lose liberty for the time of your sentence; you don't lose all your rights for life. The gun situation is one of the weird situations legally. Enumerated constitutional rights may only be taken away to serve a compelling state interest. OK, if somebody killed someone, there's a compelling state interest to see that he doesn't kill again. But what's the compelling state interest to deny an accountant who cooked the books a gun license?