Narco Confidential


Records show vet denied right to buy gun over 1971 pot charge was never convicted


veteran gun

Ret. U.S. Army SFC Ronald Kelly, 59, who served in the military for 20 years, could not purchase a gun because of a minor drug possession case when he was 17 years old. He was never convicted in the case. He is pictured, July 9, 2013, in Spring. (Johnny Hanson / Houston Chronicle)


Ron Kelly didn’t  do it, even if he thought he did.

Kelly, who lives in Tomball, was outraged a few months ago when  he failed a computerized background check required to buy a gun over a minor pot charge from 1971.

At the time  of the rejection, he insisted that he’d been convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony, and  there was no justification for denying a right that he defended  with a 20-year career in the Army.

This is a portion of a June 25, 2013 letter from the FBI to Ron Kelly letting him know about what appeared to be a criminal record blocking him from being able to buy a gun.


Following a July article in the Houston Chronicle, he spoke with politicians and lawyers and hoped for some resolution, perhaps some sort of waiver, that would one day allow him to be a gun owner.

The FBI, which runs the database that was used to reject Kelly, also reached out to try and sort out his situation.

Matters took an unexpected twist recently when at the request of a Washington D.C. lawyer who volunteered to help Kelly, records were found at the North Carolina courthouse where Kelly had been brought before a judge so long ago. They showed that his charge of possessing a gram or more of marijuana had been dismissed.

The document, which is posted below, notes that the case is being dropped - nolle prosequi.  As in, the prosecutors no long wants to go forth with this.

There was never a criminal conviction, not even a gray area over whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor, or perhaps a charge that carried a felony back in the day, but would be a misdemeanor nowadays.

The whole matter happened so long ago that Kelly admits he can hardly remember the court proceeding. He also can’t believe that acting on the government rejection letter he went on national television and conceded he had a misdemeanor conviction – when in fact he had no record at all.

It had been such a minor bump in the road of his life that he mistakenly thought he’d pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor as part of an agreement to resolve the case. But what happened was that after two re-settings, a prosecutor asked the judge to dismiss the case, and the judge agreed.

“It makes me laugh because their vaunted gun-control system doesn’t work,” said Kelly, who wonders how many times over the years the incorrect criminal history has impacted him applying for jobs, loans or other matters.

“There is no telling how many mistakes are out there in the system,” he said. “They have an automated database, and if it says your hair is green, they are going to go with it.”

He noted the irony of the federal government finding him fit enough to fire tanks and machine guns during his 20-year career as a soldier, but determining that as a civilian he wasn’t able to buy a .22 caliber rifle at the local Wal-Mart.

He said he was humiliated and angry as he was turned away from the sales counter, but most of all he was confused.

Kelly said he was a passenger in a friend’s car and the small bag of pot was under a seat. He suspects the prosecutor realized it would be tough to prove who owned the pot, as there were three people in the car.

As for what comes next, Kelly said he’s not sure what would be the most efficient way for him to clear up his record. He said now that he knows for sure he doesn’t even have a misdemeanor conviction he’d like to buy that gun.

“I don’t know that I can,” he said. “But I am going to try.”

Ron Kelly Charge Dropped

Dane Schiller

26 Responses

  1. Shannon Tuten says:

    Its easy to clear his record, file for it to be expunged. We do it all the time. we even had a record expunged for someone whose manslaugher conviction was overturned and he got his CWP back.. and you don’t have to have a lawyer to do it.. just file the paperwork.

  2. Gary N. Graziano says:

    I’m going through a similar experience in MA, where I live. The law states that you are automatically disqualified from having a License To Carry (LTC) if you have any record of a misdemeanor that is punishable by 2 years or more in jail. I had a DWI 8 years ago in another state, which at that time carried a maximum penalty of a year in jail (I was fined and lost my driver’s license briefly.) Upon receiving my denial for the LTC I retained a firearms attorney. He explained to my local PD that the MA law does not apply to my case, and they reversed their denial. I am still waiting for the final fingerprint check to be completed, but presumably will eventually get the license. This gentleman’s case should be a no-brainer: there is no crime for which he should be disqualified. Give him the license! We expect this kind of arrogance in MA, but I am surprised that TX is being so stubborn.

  3. Tom RKBA says:

    Buy one through a legal private sale. If it ever comes up, he has *no* convictions for anything and therefore is not a prohibited person. He has the paperwork that the case was dropped and can prove it in court. Meanwhile, he should have his lawyer submit paperwork to the court to get things cleared up.

  4. saved says:

    People have decided to surrender their 2nd amendment right for the claim of safety. This is only part of the result.

  5. Jenny says:

    Well, land’s sake ,we sure don’t need any pot smoking hippies running around loose with guns! I don’t care how many wars they have fought in!

    • Chris R says:

      Not sure what you mean by that. It was not his per his statement and you are presuming he was a pot smoker. Did you know, Obummer was a pot smoker? But regardless of what you think, the 2nd amendment says ‘shall not infringe upon’. That is as clear as it gets…! While I can agree, that someone who has been CONVICTED in a violent act OR is completely off their rockers and found mentally instable by a judge, should loss the right, no one else should…

    • Souky says:

      If that is not sarcasm, you REALLY need to re-educate yourself…and PLEASE DON’T VOTE as you are not informed enough to do so responsibly.

  6. Wasn't My Fault says:

    Perhaps Obama or Holder should intervene on his behalf so he can protect himself from those type thugs in Oregon that robbed and brutally beat the WWII Veteran to death or so this man may protect himself from some Hoodie wearing “Purple Drank” Thug that is trying to buy a .380 because a .22 caliber is “too small”.

    Just a shame that Big Gummint (Obama’s Dream Universe) is so messed up, but hey, they’ll run your healthcare for you. “Don’t worry, we’re from the Government and here to help.”-yeah, right.

  7. Remember that argument that it’s okay for Booz-Allen-Hamilton acting on behalf of the govt to ignore the 4th amendment b/c “I have nothing to hide”? What if their data is wrong, and you never knew that?

  8. Beelzebubba says:

    That just CRAZY. A pot smoker is much less likely to fire a gun in anger anyway. That would harsh his buzz.

  9. bill mcwilliams says:

    No rational argument can be made for criminalizing what someone eats, smokes, or snorts…in a so-called free country.

  10. agnerd says:

    Reporters again failing to properly investigate a story. Wish I could just submit anything I wanted at work and get paid for it regardless of whether or not it’s accurate.

    • The courthouse, the prosecutors office and the police department said the records were not readily available- and they were not found until several weeks later with the help of an attorney and after a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator had inquired about the matter following our report. (Even this man and the FBI thought he’d been convicted of a crime.) But even though he was not convicted of a crime, it did not change the point that he was denied permission to buy a gun. How would you have approached it differently? Thank you for sharing.

    • Scott says:

      Get’em Dane. Agnerd, get a job.

  11. The Central Scrutinizer says:

    Let this American patriot smoke pot!

  12. gson says:

    And, that is our government for you!!! SMH

  13. DannysTheMan says:

    His mistake was owning up to it. It’s simply best to lie about minor convictions, or arrests, if you were under 18 at the time. I doubt their records can even find it.

  14. TXSFRED says:

    Well The POTUS is famous for smoking pot. Is he near any guns? Isn’t that the guy who is about to put YOU into yet ANOTHER muslim garbage can? Of course, he’s not going anywhere but on vacation or golfing…

  15. nowuseeit says:

    Just keep chanting “Obama loves veterans” ignore that under Obama the VA has been sending letters to veterans who claim PTSD they are ineligible to own a firearm because of the mental health clause.

    “Obama loves veterans”

    All together now

    “Obama loves veterans”

    Ignore that DHS claims veterans are the biggest threat to the country.

    “Obama loves veterans”

    Forget the VA backlog is the highest ever under Obama.

    “Obama loves veterans and the military!”


    • AFVet says:

      I’m a retired vet myself and trust me, I have no illusion that President Obama has any authentic affinity for vets (or the military as a profession).

      That said, do you think it is a prudent idea to overlook PTSD when screening someone for a firearm purchase? Its not about penalizing a vet with PTSD, because we owe those with service-connected disability far more than they’ll ever receive. But PTSD can is a significant emotional health disorder that can manifest itself in explosive scenarios – those aren’t optimal times to have a weapon.

    • worm says:

      That noted soldier George Bush Jr. lobbied to CUT vet’s benefits . . . before 9-11. Ignoring veterans is a bipartisan game.

    • nowuseeit says:

      worm, I KNEW someone would try to excuse Obama’s shameful treatment of veterans by blaming Bush, YOU never disappoint do you?

      Bush was an airman, not a soldier, but facts are not your friends are they?

      So AFvet, seems to me that the VA is trying to reduce the number of claims of PTSD. 2nd amendment or treatment which do you think a real PTSD vet would chose?

  16. Joe says:

    This guy has not seen the end of this yet, the Government is embarrassed now.
    When you embarrass the Government, you will suffer from loss of paperwork, loss of records, being put on the no fly list, you name it.

  17. scott38 says:

    For those who love Big Government please understand that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. And when they take it it will be just as likely as not that they are acting on faulty information.

  18. DerAdlerSteigt says:

    And, Obama wants more of this with a Universal Background Check? Let’s not forget their infamous no-fly list that includes members of Congress, media personalities, etc.

    • Don't Twerk Me, Bro says:


      Most of Congress should be put on a no-legislate list.