*3 the statutes such statutes “can- ELY, Circuit Judge (concurring): consistently not be or stand reconciled to- concur, I reluctantly gether.” concur The Illinois define statutes because of the compulsion precedent person of the stands “convicted” of a state crime within our own Circuit. See United of future disabilities and treat- Bergeman, Although ment. the concept of “convic- F.2d 800 tion” is element of 18 U.S.C. “receipt” The court also found that Locke had Benson’s of the firearm occurred applicable convicted under shortly security the state law. 542 after he commenced work as a guard employer in Nevada. His advised that carry part Benson must a firearm as of his 922(h)(1) provides: 1. 18 U.S.C. § regulation dress. Because Benson did not have (h) any person— gun, It shall be unlawful he borrowed the firearm from a fellow (1) for, security guard who is under indictment or who has different who worked a shift. of, any pun- been convicted in gun solely a crime Benson’s use of the for his by imprisonment ishable for a term exceed- security-guard always work. The firearm was ing year; one returned its owner after Benson’s shift was over. to receive firearm or ammunition which transported has been or in interstate foreign commerce. year.” exceeding not define the ment for a term one Be- 922(h)(1), that statute does is well settled that “unless Con free to define generally It cause the states are clearly, it will
gress conveys of a crime and to determine elements significantly not be deemed to have length statutory penalty, changed the federal-state balance.” United may crime and often sentence for 336, 349, Thus, among several states. vary does 515, 523, L.Ed.2d state who has commit- an individual one in the absence in of a clear may that he is within the ted a crime find contrary, ought tent to look to 922(h)(1) ambit of while a who apply the state definition of conviction in crime in committed the identical another ing prior when the “conviction” scope may not be within the was one of state law. See United States v. statute, troubling, is more than federal *4 therefore, systems to hold that these state J., 1979) (Takasugi, sentencing comport theory with a Holland, Defined, 40 Conviction J.State Bar expunction uniformity national while of Calif. 36 prosecution statutes must be deferred case, In the circumstances of this ignored application because “the of federal pros- District Court found that Benson was depend solely upon criminal sanctions would ecuted under 410 of the Illinois Food and where previous the defendant’s conviction prosecution law —a deferred statute. had occurred.” United States v. Majority Opinion, Assuming note 2. supra, 592 id. at 542 F.2d at 537. See correct, this to be the Illinois court never (Takasugi, dissenting); Kelly v. Immi- against did enter a Service, gration supra, & Naturalization During argument Benson. the oral F.2d at 475. case, the Assistant Attorney, United States statutes, prosecution Deferred like ex- Government, representing conceded statutes, punction upon important based are this was true. this situation policy concerns. The states enact these distinguished should be arising from one promote laws to deter recidivism expunction under an statute wherein a full of their citizens. In each rehabilitation judgment of conviction is entered and later case, the state has chosen allow an indi- wrote, however, long ago “erased”. As I vidual familiar with the circum- still hold that when a state conviction is state, judge stances —the expunged by the there is' no “convic- trial determine —to comments, supra, tion”. Holland’s what criminal and civil sanctions should at Defined, reflect the deep supra. resentment that all state tach. See Conviction Fed judges wrongly hold because of decisions eral im intrusion into this area upon majority rely. which the I entertain power pinges upon the states’ n resentment, believing that we pioneer fashion and effective rehabilitation officiously wrongly usurped have a programs. “significantly That intrusion power. balance”, change[s] the federal-state at supra, It has been argued adoption of state despite at a clear definitions, including expunction or de- contrary. intent provisions, would lead to respect law insofar Because we a state’s as application uneven of federal de- sentence, defining the crime and we err in pendent “vagaries” of state law. according the states “the same See, g., e. Garcia-Gonzales v. & application statute or of its Service, 1965). Yet, interpretation decisions in the of the effect there can be no since, subsequent according very language procedure taken under a 922(h)(1), person scope is within the . . .” v. Immi [state] supra, the statute when convicted “in gration Naturalization punishable by imprison- court of a crime