Bret Michaels and Tommy Lee in Federal Gun Probe

Bret Michaels and Tommy Lee are now involved in a federal gun probe thanks to a picture they took on July 11th. Michaels and Lee had gone to a shooting range in North Carolina where they shot off some guns and posed for the picture with firearms. Unbeknownst to them, it is against North Carolina law for anyone "who has been convicted of a felony from purchasing, owning, or controlling a firearm."

Lee, obviously, has a history with the law so he could potentially be in some major trouble. The strange thing about this story is that on the day the rockers visited the shooting range, they were accompanied "by officers from the Rowan County Sheriff's Office, Salisbury and Spencer police departments." So, if cops from all three of those departments didn't think there was any harm in letting some aging rockers shoot off guns, why would it matter to anyone else?

Well, it wouldn't have mattered at all if a nosy news station, WSOC-TV, hadn't brought it to the attention of authorities. Ah, anything for a buck and anything for a story. A rep for the news station stated, "The sheriff and local police chiefs didn't know about it until we brought it to their attention. It could be illegal if any of those men have criminal records that prohibits them from using guns."

Now, Bret Michaels and Tommy Lee are being investigated by The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. They could potentially be in a lot of hot water. What do you think? Do you think they should be in trouble for shooting some guns off while in the presence of officers? Who do you think is at fault here?

Comments: 16

Lori F. Jul 29, 2011, 9:59pm UTC

That is a law in Iowa too. I would venture to say you will find it in most states. Good muscians for sure but maybe not so good in the common sense department.

reply to this comment

Janet "Jax" B. Jul 30, 2011, 1:55am UTC

Well, if cops were with them....then I'd put some of the blame on them.

Effervescent Mystique Jul 30, 2011, 4:06pm UTC

i agree janet! the cops are the ones who should know the laws of that state. the old rocker dudes were just passing through on a vacation

Chris Meissen Aug 1, 2011, 1:18pm UTC

It's a federal law although most states have similar or identical laws. Under the federal law, possession of a firearm by one who has been convicted of a felony or a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is a mandatory five year sentence. Go to http://thomas.gov.us and search the US Code Title 18 Chapter 921 (a)(33) for the definition. 18 USC 922(g)(4) is where you'll find the federal law against prohibition by those convicted of "crimes of domestic violence."

Try reading those federal gun laws sometime just to see if you can understand them. It took me 1/2 an hour to find the cite above and I knew what I was looking for because I've discussed it before in other forums. 18 USC 922 alone is many pages long and composed of some very dry, esoteric, and hard to understand language yet an inadvertent violation of any of it can result in as much as ten years in prison.

reply to this comment

John Gnauck Jul 30, 2011, 11:09am UTC

Did their felonies involve violent crimes????

Effervescent Mystique Jul 30, 2011, 4:06pm UTC

tommy lee's was for beating up Pamela anderson but i don't think that brett had any felonies

Chris Meissen Jul 30, 2011, 5:43pm UTC

In that case, it didn't even have to be felony. The law is known as the Lautenberg Amendment because it was introduced by Sen. Lautenberg of N.J. in 1996. Under that law, it's a federal felony for anyone EVER convicted of even a _misdemeanor_ "crime of domestic violence" to possess even a single round of ammunition let alone actually hold a gun in his hands. That law burns hundreds of people every year if not every month. It's just that a celebrity got burnt this time,

John Gnauck Jul 31, 2011, 9:36am UTC

This causes some heartburn. So many lawyers pull the "domestic violence" trigger as a negotiating lever in a divorce.

Chris Meissen Jul 31, 2011, 4:41pm UTC

You are so correct, John. It doesn't even have to be domestic violence. Anyone "under an order of protection" which is almost routine in a divorce case, is also denied his/her 2nd Amendment rights under the Lautenberg amendment. IANAL but this was an issue when teaching CCW classes. As an instructors we had to make sure that no students had any prior felonies, no "domestic violence" convictions, and no "protection" orders from their spouses.

BTW--simply verbally threatening one's spouse is, legally, assault and hence a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." I find it a bit amusing that celebrities who, as a group, tend to support gun laws like this one scream bloody murder when they get caught by them.

reply to this comment

nesha j. Jul 30, 2011, 4:08pm UTC

who let these two hang out together

reply to this comment

John S. (arizona) Jul 30, 2011, 4:19pm UTC

It's the BATF itself that needs investigating lately. Not sure why they are involved in a state law issue if that is what it is, but don't know enough details really.

reply to this comment

Chris Meissen Jul 30, 2011, 5:37pm UTC

That has been the Federal law since at least 1968. There was a man who lived near me sentenced to five years in prison for being a "felon in possession." He had a single-shot rifle that he used for squirrel hunting and his felony was a thirty-year old conviction for marijuana possession. He'd been given an eighteen month suspended sentence and probation, which he'd successfully completed literally decades ago. Ordinary people have been convicted and sentenced under this law for possessing nothing more than a single ammunition cartridge or shotgun shell. I think it stinks that ordinary citizens go to prison while people raise a fuss when celebrities and rich folk get apprehended for the same crimes.

John S. (arizona) Jul 31, 2011, 12:43pm UTC

I knew about the buying, owning, storing thing, but wasn't sure if going along to a shooting range would fall into that, thanks. I have a friend I worked with that was busted for smoking pot when he was 18 years old and caught up in that law. It took him nearly 40 years, but he finally got his "rights" back a few years ago through the courts. I think the law overboard and dumb for some offenses personally.

Chris Meissen Jul 31, 2011, 4:44pm UTC

No argument about the law being overboard and dumb. In her book, "Atlas Shrugged," author Ayn Rand has one of the characters, a mid-level government bureaucrat, say that it's impossible to control innocent people. So, it is necessary to enact so many laws that no one can be sure of not having violated at least one or two. That way everyone is guilty of something and therefore susceptible to control. There's much truth in that.

John S. (arizona) Aug 1, 2011, 11:24am UTC

I can see it in practice too often...

reply to this comment

Bret Michaels and Tommy Lee in Federal Gun Probe

Comments: 16

Join the Conversation