kraftyone
Active Member
- Mar 9, 2013
- 966
Post sb281 or before, can an individual who lives with a convicted felon purchase and own firearms?
Gun ownership question
- Thread starter kraftyone
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yes, as long as the convicted felon has no access to them.
I once asked a lawyer about this after a discussion with a friend.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,735
Always a classic..
bhtr
Member
I used to live down the street from the Liddys. Good people.
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
j_h_smith
Ultimate Member
- Jul 28, 2007
- 28,516
Found on the interweb...
Under the federal law prohibiting possession by banned individuals, it is not required that the individual own the gun or that they literally have the gun on their person. To be guilty, the individual must merely have what the law calls “constructive possession” of the firearm. Constructive possession of firearms or ammunition is when the possessor has control over the place where the firearm was located, or control, ownership, or dominion over the firearm itself. It is not required that the prohibited person intend or plan to use the firearm.2 That wordy legal definition simply means that there are all sorts of ways that prohibited individuals could be found to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition and subject to criminal liability.
Under the federal law prohibiting possession by banned individuals, it is not required that the individual own the gun or that they literally have the gun on their person. To be guilty, the individual must merely have what the law calls “constructive possession” of the firearm. Constructive possession of firearms or ammunition is when the possessor has control over the place where the firearm was located, or control, ownership, or dominion over the firearm itself. It is not required that the prohibited person intend or plan to use the firearm.2 That wordy legal definition simply means that there are all sorts of ways that prohibited individuals could be found to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition and subject to criminal liability.
kraftyone
Active Member
- Mar 9, 2013
- 966
Which is the reason i asked the question had this conversation with my wife's friend who's husband who is prohibited from owning firearms. He was under the belief that because of this she could not own firearms also. I believed she could but before I said so figured I would do some searching.
- Feb 4, 2013
- 28,175
AFAIK she can.
I would have a good safe, without him having the combination.
I would have a good safe, without him having the combination.
I really hate to bring this thread back from the dead, but a close friend may be in a similar situation and I would like to ask if anyone has anything to add to the original OP and replies, or any updated information. Thanks in advance for your help and or advice.
possumman
Ultimate Member
And kept them under Mr. Liddy's side of the bed.
The same question recently came up with someone I know. The legal answer ( I am not an attorney) seems to be, yes as long as the former felon does not have access. The practical problem is that any prosecutor could find some way to argue that the former felon DID have access. For example, if the felon's wife keeps her gun locked in a safe but keeps the key in her purse on the nightstand in the bedroom, the prosecutor might argue that the felon had access to the key. It all depends on how big a burr the prosecutor has up his rear. So, my personal recommendation would be that even though it probably is legal, I wouldn't do it. It's too risky.
CrueChief
Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
I guess this issue falls into the category of just because its technically legal doesn't make it worth the risk.
One possible way for the non-prohibitated person to safely owner a firearm would most likely be to "Store it" outside the residence, such as at a trusted family members house in their gun safe.
One possible way for the non-prohibitated person to safely owner a firearm would most likely be to "Store it" outside the residence, such as at a trusted family members house in their gun safe.
I agree again. Just throws self-defense out the window.
hillbilly grandpa
Active Member
So, then, how does one resolve the elephant conundrum in the room? The appellate and supreme courts have asserted on multiple occasions that the police have no duty to protect the private individual. Ergo, one's personal security is one's own responsibility. One often owns firearms to level the field and enhance the possibility of self defense.
But apparently, if one is married to, or otherwise lives with someone who is prohibited from possessing the means of self defense, that person has their ability to protect him/herself restricted because of someone else's restrictions. (Putting one's firearm in the neighbor's safe exposes one to potential physical assault in order to avoid possible judicial assault by someone acting under the cover of law.) Yet this restriction on his/her right of self defense--unrelated to any action that person has taken, or any adjudicated restriction or prohibition, is not accompanied by a commensurate expansion of the state's obligation to provide for the safety and security of the guiltless individual.
Where I grew up people had a saying" You gotta either run with the foxes or bark with the hounds." Either you allow me the unfettered ability to defend myself, or you provide me with comparable protection. It seems to me that the state creates a "special relationship" with a citizen by other actions in addition to incarceration of involuntary institutionalization. Foxes/hounds.
But apparently, if one is married to, or otherwise lives with someone who is prohibited from possessing the means of self defense, that person has their ability to protect him/herself restricted because of someone else's restrictions. (Putting one's firearm in the neighbor's safe exposes one to potential physical assault in order to avoid possible judicial assault by someone acting under the cover of law.) Yet this restriction on his/her right of self defense--unrelated to any action that person has taken, or any adjudicated restriction or prohibition, is not accompanied by a commensurate expansion of the state's obligation to provide for the safety and security of the guiltless individual.
Where I grew up people had a saying" You gotta either run with the foxes or bark with the hounds." Either you allow me the unfettered ability to defend myself, or you provide me with comparable protection. It seems to me that the state creates a "special relationship" with a citizen by other actions in addition to incarceration of involuntary institutionalization. Foxes/hounds.
Yeah, very large elephant, very small room. Seems hard to ignore.
Heaven forbid someone actually has to use a firearm in self-defense in this situation.
Heaven forbid someone actually has to use a firearm in self-defense in this situation.
This is actually a big deal in America, and something people pay very little attention to...
According to a 2014 article by Libertarian News: About 8.6% of the adult population has a felony conviction, or about 20 million people. That works out to about 1 in 12 adult Americans.
That is a staggering number.
According to a 2014 article by Libertarian News: About 8.6% of the adult population has a felony conviction, or about 20 million people. That works out to about 1 in 12 adult Americans.
That is a staggering number.
good guy 176
R.I.P.
In the late 70s we lived on post at Fort Geo. G. Meade and the Lutheran pastor and his family resided on the same street with us, TILL one day his GF got a tad up tight (he would not divorce his frumpy wife for her) and so she up and blew his hairless ass away as he lounged in the hot tub...then GF turned the pistol on herself and squeezed off one more...two gone and romance over...real bad day at Black Rock Ft Meade.
Sorry pair and both of those turds worked at First Army where I worked as an Aviation Staff Officer and later as a Personnel Staff Officer where me, Col Ruth S. and the 3 Star CG were sued by a former West Point Cpt (in the Reserves at the time of his incident) after I'd gotten Army approval to drop the SOB from the Army's rolls.
Perp had stolen explosives and planted them in a storage bin at Hartsfield (sp) Intl Airport in Atlanta and then attempted to extort a few mill from the airlines. He was convicted and got about 8 years and then proceeded to sue us for dropping him when the Regs clearly gave us the authority to do so. I signed the Cpt's release, after LTG Rosenblum had OK'd the dropping from the rolls for Cpt Helmich. That turd should not have slept thru Law 101 at the Point.
Then on my previous tour in Mannheim W. Germany (as a Bde S1), 1974-77, I had two West Pointers out of the Point class of 1971 and neither was worth the powder to send their asses into space...lazy and worthless!
Lew--Ranger63
