Don Rehkopf as a reminder to defense counsel

Here is something from good friend Don Rehkopf as a reminder to defense counsel.
1)   For anyone representing a client with Art. 120, offenses that will trigger a Dismissal or DD upon conviction; or
2)   Anyone representing a client where there may be a chance of being sentenced to a Dismissal or DD;
To avoid an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, such as in Padilla v. Kentucky, please ensure (especially for those supervising line Defense Counsel) that the defense attorney advises the client of a mandatory, and thus ‘direct’ consequence of such a sentence, viz., a federal felony, especially if they are avid hunters, target shooters, skeet shooters, etc., they cannot possess firearms or ammunition!
_____________________________
18 U.S.C. § 922:
 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
                                                     * * * * *
         6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
                                                             * * * * *
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
______________________
Needless to say, I’m working on a case where [client] got a DD over 14 years ago, who has been a hunter all of his life – at least until now – when he went to buy a new shotgun for next Fall’s deer season, popped up on the background check as being “ineligible” to possess.  While they didn’t sell him that firearm, ATF showed up at his house a few days later and asked if he had “any firearms” in the house, and he dutifully showed them his 2 shotguns, and 3 rifles [along with @ 200 rounds of ammo], which he surrendered in lieu of arrest.  The US Attorney’s Office is not pressing this as they’re not interested in adding to Padilla and its progeny, and (at least for now) is looking to simply forfeit the confiscated weapons.
Of course there’s nothing in the RoT remotely discussing this mandatory prohibition, so add it to the stuff you advise clients.  As an aside, I think it fair game to get the Court to judicially note the above statute as a mandatory consequence of a Dismissal or DD, and if the discharge isn’t mandatory especially to argue for no more than a BCD if that.
Be advised.