Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 1/6/2012 6:34:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2012 6:35:54 AM EDT by JLH3]
The Second Amendment and Housemates of Felons

Eugene Volokh • January 6, 2012 7:21 am

Yesterday’s United States v. Huet (3d Cir.) reverses a district court indictment dismissal that I blogged about a year ago (some line breaks added):

Although [Melissa] Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, [her housemate and boyfriend Marvin] Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. After being informed of [a raid on her house that uncovered guns], Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet’s assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall’s possession....

[Huet moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing] that even if Count Three did state an offense for aiding and abetting a felon in possession, under the factual scenario presented in this case, the charge violated her rights under the Second Amendment. The District Court agreed, finding that "to permit [the] Indictment to go forward ... would be [to] countenanc[e] the total elimination of the right of a sane, non-felonious citizen to possess a firearm, in her home, simply because her paramour is a felon.” "[T]o punish Huet, who has not been convicted of a felony ... as a principal, violates the core of the Second Amendment right to keep arms,” the Court opined, because the conduct alleged to have aided and abetted was "purely possessory.” Although the District Court did not explicitly designate the Second Amendment violation as an alternative basis for dismissal, it clearly viewed it as such. Accordingly, we must address both the sufficiency of the Indictment and the Second Amendment challenge....

[T]he District Court erred to the extent that it imposed a heightened pleading standard for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 2 [the federal aiding and abetting statute –EV]. The District Court dismissed Count Three based on its determination that "[t]he facts in the Indictment fail[ed] to set forth any allegations to support the conclusion that ... Huet aided and abetted ... Hall in his unlawful possession of the SKS rifle.” The District Court faulted the Government for failing to include "any specifics” as to how Huet aided Hall, and determined that the Government simply "charge[d] its conclusion.” Although some offenses must be pled with greater specificity than the "plain, concise, and definite written statement” contemplated by Rule 7(c)(1), we have never held aiding and abetting a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 2 to be such an offense, and we decline to do so now....

[As to the Second Amendment,] Huet argues that based on the circumstances of her case, she cannot constitutionally be charged with aiding and abetting a felon to possess a firearm. Specifically, she contends that the Government’s only evidence is that she possessed the SKS rifle in her home while living with a convicted felon. The District Court agreed, finding that "to permit [the] Indictment to go forward” would be to "countenance[e] the total elimination of the right of a sane, non-felonious citizen to possess a firearm, in her home, simply because her paramour is a felon.

We disagree. We cannot say that an indictment which properly alleges aiding and abetting a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 2 violates the Second Amendment under Heller. Applying Marzzarella [a recent Third Circuit precedent –EV], a properly-brought aiding and abetting charge does not burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment. The District Court’s characterization of the Indictment as seeking to criminalize the otherwise legal possession of a firearm by a non-felon simply because she lives with a felon is misleading. The Indictment does not allege that Huet’s possession of the SKS rifle violated the law; rather, it alleges that Huet aided and abetted Hall to possess the firearm.

We are mindful of the risk that felon dispossession statutes, when combined with laws regarding accomplice liability, may be misused to subject law-abiding cohabitants to liability simply for possessing a weapon in the home. However, in this case, the District Court’s determination that the Government overreached was premature. Huet’s arguments regarding the circumstances of her possession must await further development of the evidentiary record.

Huet’s argument that her status as a non-felon brings her case within the scope of Second Amendment protection is unavailing.... Huet would not violate § 922(g)(1) simply by possessing a firearm. She would, however, violate § 922(g)(1) and § 2 by aiding and abetting a felon to possess a firearm. Count Three charges her with the latter. Thus, the fact that she is not within the class of persons prohibited from possessing a firearm is irrelevant; her right to possess a firearm is not implicated by the charges against her. Moreover, even if part of the conduct that allegedly aided and abetted Hall’s possession involved possession of the firearm by Huet, the Second Amendment does not afford citizens a right to carry arms for "any purpose.” Huet’s right to keep the SKS rifle in her home did not give her the right to facilitate Hall’s possession of the weapon. Otherwise illegal conduct does not somehow become immunized because possession of a firearm is involved in the offense. See, e.g., United States v. Potter, 630 F.3d 1260, 1261 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (rejecting a defendant’s challenge to his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and concluding that "[e]ven if [the defendant] kept the firearm also to protect himself and his home,” it could not "seriously be contended that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to use a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking ”).








Link Posted: 1/6/2012 6:40:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2012 6:44:13 AM EDT by Hugo_Stiglitz]
I'll wait for translation to english before commenting.

ETA: Read the thing three times. I think it's saying that the woman is guilty of aiding and abetting and her 2A rights don't matter. If so that's bullshit. I don't support removal of Constitutional rights for Felons who aren't in jail or on probation, I certainly don't support spreading that tyrannical disease onto NON-Felons because of proximity.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 6:48:10 AM EDT
I think its pretty simple .
She can have them but if there is a felon in the home ,the fellon gets to go to jail... Sounds good to me
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 6:50:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2012 6:51:34 AM EDT by JLH3]
The basics appear (to me anyways) to be this. Woman owns SKS. Woman lives with convicted felon. She is charged with aiding him in possessing the same SKS.

The disctrict court held that saying she lost her 2nd Amnd rights just because she lived with a felon violated those rights and dismissed the charge against her.

The appeals court reversed saying:

1. The charges don't have to specifically say how she was aiding and abetting, just that she was.

2. The charge is that she aided felon in possessing the gun. Not that she possessed one herself.

This seems to be the important part:

The Indictment does not allege that Huet’s possession of the SKS rifle violated the law; rather, it alleges that Huet aided and abetted Hall to possess the firearm.
We are mindful of the risk that felon dispossession statutes, when combined with laws regarding accomplice liability, may be misused to subject law-abiding cohabitants to liability simply for possessing a weapon in the home. However, in this case, the District Court’s determination that the Government overreached was premature. Huet’s arguments regarding the circumstances of her possession must await further development of the evidentiary record.


I believe the court is saying that on one hand, just because she had a gun while living in a house with a felon does not make her guilty of aiding and abetting him in possessing the same gun. HOWEVER, she might be. And that is a question for the jury to decide.

After reading the decision I can't say I disagree with it. The decision means the AUSA will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the manner in which she possessed the gun aided and abetted her boyfriend's possession/access to that gun.

Link Posted: 1/6/2012 6:52:23 AM EDT
They make a compelling legal argument.

But I still think denying felons the RTKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. (But that's another thread)
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 6:56:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wtturn:
They make a compelling legal argument.

But I still think denying felons the RTKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. (But that's another thread)


There has to be repercussions for committing crimes.

Commit a serious crime and lose the right to own firearms and voting, and other. I have no problem with these.

I know folks can change, maybe some sort of process to regain these rights, but to just willie nillie give them back means there is no punishment.

Link Posted: 1/6/2012 6:58:18 AM EDT

Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.


WTF?
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:00:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dex357:
Originally Posted By wtturn:
They make a compelling legal argument.

But I still think denying felons the RTKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. (But that's another thread)


There has to be repercussions for committing crimes.

Commit a serious crime and lose the right to own firearms and voting, and other. I have no problem with these.

I know folks can change, maybe some sort of process to regain these rights, but to just willie nillie give them back means there is no punishment.



Prison is not the punishment it SHOULD BE, but it is without a doubt punishment, utterly ridiculous to ignore that.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:00:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JLH3:
The basics appear (to me anyways) to be this. Woman owns SKS. Woman lives with convicted felon. She is charged with aiding him in possessing the same SKS.

The disctrict court held that saying she lost her 2nd Amnd rights just because she lived with a felon violated those rights and dismissed the charge against her.

The appeals court reversed saying:

1. The charges don't have to specifically say how she was aiding and abetting, just that she was.

2. The charge is that she aided felon in possessing the gun. Not that she possessed one herself.

This seems to be the important part:

The Indictment does not allege that Huet’s possession of the SKS rifle violated the law; rather, it alleges that Huet aided and abetted Hall to possess the firearm.
We are mindful of the risk that felon dispossession statutes, when combined with laws regarding accomplice liability, may be misused to subject law-abiding cohabitants to liability simply for possessing a weapon in the home. However, in this case, the District Court’s determination that the Government overreached was premature. Huet’s arguments regarding the circumstances of her possession must await further development of the evidentiary record.


I believe the court is saying that on one hand, just because she had a gun while living in a house with a felon does not make her guilty of aiding and abetting him in possessing the same gun. HOWEVER, she might be. And that is a question for the jury to decide.

After reading the decision I can't say I disagree with it. The decision means the AUSA will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the manner in which she possessed the gun aided and abetted her boyfriend's possession/access to that gun.



"might" is a slippery slope to start down on.

what's next? arresting people for MAYBE giving booze and smokes to minors sharing the same apartment? Or porn!... you live with a child so that child MIGHT see your porn, therefore you have to be arrested for exposing children to porn too!


I can only see this turning into a means to take away rights
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:01:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hugo_Stiglitz:
I'll wait for translation to english before commenting.

ETA: Read the thing three times. I think it's saying that the woman is guilty of aiding and abetting and her 2A rights don't matter. If so that's bullshit. I don't support removal of Constitutional rights for Felons who aren't in jail or on probation, I certainly don't support spreading that tyrannical disease onto NON-Felons because of proximity.


Actually, it isn't that her rights don't matter, it's that they had no bearing on the A&A. In plain English, whether or not she had any 2nd Amendment rights, the crime of A&A was committed when she made firearms available to a felon. I'm not sure if this decision was just or not, but I might do a little heavy reading this afternoon to get more informed.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:01:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By I8asquirrel:
I think its pretty simple .
She can have them but if there is a felon in the home ,the fellon gets to go to jail... Sounds good to me


The government is trying to convict HER, not the felon.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:04:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2012 7:05:32 AM EDT by GumbyTM]
Originally Posted By dex357:
Originally Posted By wtturn:
They make a compelling legal argument.

But I still think denying felons the RTKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. (But that's another thread)


There has to be repercussions for committing crimes.

Commit a serious crime and lose the right to own firearms and voting, and other. I have no problem with these.

I know folks can change, maybe some sort of process to regain these rights, but to just willie nillie give them back means there is no punishment.



I call bullshit, If they paid their dues and are deemed safe enough to be out on the street you should get your rights back.
If they are that dangerous they shouldn't be let out.

The last thing we need is to give the government and excuse to take away more of peoples rights.

But like the gentleman said, perhaps another thread.


ETA, this is textbook guilt by association.

Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:10:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wtturn:
They make a compelling legal argument.

But I still think denying felons the RTKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. (But that's another thread)


+1.. If they are too dangerous to have firearms, why are they out of prison to begin with.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:11:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dex357:
Originally Posted By wtturn:
They make a compelling legal argument.

But I still think denying felons the RTKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. (But that's another thread)


There has to be repercussions for committing crimes.

Commit a serious crime and lose the right to own firearms and voting, and other. I have no problem with these.

I know folks can change, maybe some sort of process to regain these rights, but to just willie nillie give them back means there is no punishment.



If there was a easier process for felons/ex-felons to get their rights back I would agree with you. Right now short of a Pardon there is no real way to get rights back. And it seems Pardons are not issued as much as they use to be.

Should a person who was 18 years old who say stole hubcaps and served 18 months in prison be barred from owning a firearm the rest of his life? I think that is unreasonable especially if he has since gotten a good job and stayed out of trouble and became a good citizen.

I think a more reasonbable system would be say a non-violent felon automatically get his rights back after 5 or 10 years if he has had no more felony convictions after serving his sentence.

Right now the system we have in place is unreasonable and leads to BS like in the article.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:14:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By geekz0r:
Originally Posted By JLH3:
The basics appear (to me anyways) to be this. Woman owns SKS. Woman lives with convicted felon. She is charged with aiding him in possessing the same SKS.

The disctrict court held that saying she lost her 2nd Amnd rights just because she lived with a felon violated those rights and dismissed the charge against her.

The appeals court reversed saying:

1. The charges don't have to specifically say how she was aiding and abetting, just that she was.

2. The charge is that she aided felon in possessing the gun. Not that she possessed one herself.

This seems to be the important part:

The Indictment does not allege that Huet’s possession of the SKS rifle violated the law; rather, it alleges that Huet aided and abetted Hall to possess the firearm.
We are mindful of the risk that felon dispossession statutes, when combined with laws regarding accomplice liability, may be misused to subject law-abiding cohabitants to liability simply for possessing a weapon in the home. However, in this case, the District Court’s determination that the Government overreached was premature. Huet’s arguments regarding the circumstances of her possession must await further development of the evidentiary record.


I believe the court is saying that on one hand, just because she had a gun while living in a house with a felon does not make her guilty of aiding and abetting him in possessing the same gun. HOWEVER, she might be. And that is a question for the jury to decide.

After reading the decision I can't say I disagree with it. The decision means the AUSA will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the manner in which she possessed the gun aided and abetted her boyfriend's possession/access to that gun.



"might" is a slippery slope to start down on.

what's next? arresting people for MAYBE giving booze and smokes to minors sharing the same apartment? Or porn!... you live with a child so that child MIGHT see your porn, therefore you have to be arrested for exposing children to porn too!


I can only see this turning into a means to take away rights


Or you have an internet connection so you might hack...
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:16:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MDracer76:
Originally Posted By wtturn:
They make a compelling legal argument.

But I still think denying felons the RTKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. (But that's another thread)


+1.. If they are too dangerous to have firearms, why are they out of prison to begin with.


This.

In short reading the above......I'm going to call BS. Guilty by association or proximity is not guilt.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:21:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dex357:
Originally Posted By wtturn:
They make a compelling legal argument.

But I still think denying felons the RTKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. (But that's another thread)


There has to be repercussions for committing crimes.

Commit a serious crime and lose the right to own firearms and voting, and other. I have no problem with these.

I know folks can change, maybe some sort of process to regain these rights, but to just willie nillie give them back means there is no punishment.


First its serious crimes like murder and stealing a man's horse/car.
Then its a serious crime to possess drugs of certain amounts.
Then its a serious crime to have ever been in a fight in a domestic situation. Verbal or physical.

You give the gov permission to revoke rights, after a person has served their time; you give them wholesale permission to revoke your rights privileges. Rights are inalienable or they are not.

Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:22:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2012 7:23:29 AM EDT by eric496]
Originally Posted By wreckinturn4:

Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.


WTF?


Unregistered NFA firearm, I believe. Should have paid the $200.00 tax.

ETA: Yup, NFA.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:33:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2012 7:35:39 AM EDT by TrojanMan]
Originally Posted By wreckinturn4:

Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.


WTF?


I've looked up the quoted code and I can't figure it out.

Does it mean that nobody can make a firearm (any firearm) without paying the registration tax? How does that jive with all the folks with 80% receivers and such?


ETA: So wait. It's called "machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms" but it never defines "firearm" as being an NFA weapon, it just uses "firearm" the whole time. I assumed the tax only applied to NFA weapons, so why do they just use "firearm" throughout the entire code?
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:40:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JLH3:
The basics appear (to me anyways) to be this. Woman owns SKS. Woman lives with convicted felon. She is charged with aiding him in possessing the same SKS.

The disctrict court held that saying she lost her 2nd Amnd rights just because she lived with a felon violated those rights and dismissed the charge against her.

The appeals court reversed saying:

1. The charges don't have to specifically say how she was aiding and abetting, just that she was.

2. The charge is that she aided felon in possessing the gun. Not that she possessed one herself.

This seems to be the important part:

The Indictment does not allege that Huet’s possession of the SKS rifle violated the law; rather, it alleges that Huet aided and abetted Hall to possess the firearm.
We are mindful of the risk that felon dispossession statutes, when combined with laws regarding accomplice liability, may be misused to subject law-abiding cohabitants to liability simply for possessing a weapon in the home. However, in this case, the District Court’s determination that the Government overreached was premature. Huet’s arguments regarding the circumstances of her possession must await further development of the evidentiary record.


I believe the court is saying that on one hand, just because she had a gun while living in a house with a felon does not make her guilty of aiding and abetting him in possessing the same gun. HOWEVER, she might be. And that is a question for the jury to decide.

After reading the decision I can't say I disagree with it. The decision means the AUSA will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the manner in which she possessed the gun aided and abetted her boyfriend's possession/access to that gun.





Yeah, not really likely in my experience. Fed prosecutors go in all the time with cases that would be tossed out of state court here, or that would be laughed at by a reasonable state jury. Fed juries, on the other hand LOVE fed prosecutors and hand them convictions almost without question.

No, best case for this woman now is probably to take a plea and lose her rights.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:41:36 AM EDT
You guys are not reading this correctly. The court is saying that since she was not charged with illegal possession, that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply in this case. They affirm that Huet was allowed to legally possess firearms.

Basically the court says that the lower court incorrectly dismissed the indictment and that Huets arguments were appropriate for the trial portion rather than simply dissmissing the indictment in the first place.

Please note my legal experience consists of a single administrative law class, so I may be incorrect.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 7:45:10 AM EDT
The fact that we let our government fuck people over when no crime of any significance is being committed is appalling.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 8:00:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Originally Posted By JLH3:
The basics appear (to me anyways) to be this. Woman owns SKS. Woman lives with convicted felon. She is charged with aiding him in possessing the same SKS.

The disctrict court held that saying she lost her 2nd Amnd rights just because she lived with a felon violated those rights and dismissed the charge against her.

The appeals court reversed saying:

1. The charges don't have to specifically say how she was aiding and abetting, just that she was.

2. The charge is that she aided felon in possessing the gun. Not that she possessed one herself.

This seems to be the important part:

The Indictment does not allege that Huet’s possession of the SKS rifle violated the law; rather, it alleges that Huet aided and abetted Hall to possess the firearm.
We are mindful of the risk that felon dispossession statutes, when combined with laws regarding accomplice liability, may be misused to subject law-abiding cohabitants to liability simply for possessing a weapon in the home. However, in this case, the District Court’s determination that the Government overreached was premature. Huet’s arguments regarding the circumstances of her possession must await further development of the evidentiary record.


I believe the court is saying that on one hand, just because she had a gun while living in a house with a felon does not make her guilty of aiding and abetting him in possessing the same gun. HOWEVER, she might be. And that is a question for the jury to decide.

After reading the decision I can't say I disagree with it. The decision means the AUSA will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the manner in which she possessed the gun aided and abetted her boyfriend's possession/access to that gun.





Yeah, not really likely in my experience. Fed prosecutors go in all the time with cases that would be tossed out of state court here, or that would be laughed at by a reasonable state jury. Fed juries, on the other hand LOVE fed prosecutors and hand them convictions almost without question.

No, best case for this woman now is probably to take a plea and lose her rights.


Well, regardless of how much Fed juries buy what ASUA's are selling, the standard is still beyond a reasonable doubt. And any other comments I might have about ASUA's will be kept to myself.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 8:52:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2012 8:52:46 AM EDT by brickeyee]
Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
Originally Posted By wreckinturn4:

Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.


WTF?


I've looked up the quoted code and I can't figure it out.

Does it mean that nobody can make a firearm (any firearm) without paying the registration tax? How does that jive with all the folks with 80% receivers and such?


ETA: So wait. It's called "machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms" but it never defines "firearm" as being an NFA weapon, it just uses "firearm" the whole time. I assumed the tax only applied to NFA weapons, so why do they just use "firearm" throughout the entire code?


For purposes of the NFA, a " firearm" is defined as a machine gun in the entire law.

You cannot read just one portion of statute law without also looking at any definitions used in the law.

Unless the law defines a term explicitly they do have their normal meaning.

The NFA defines "firearm" explicitly in other sections.

He had an unregistered machine gun, or other NFA defined weapon (sawed off shotgun, etc.).


The ruling says she needs to defend against the count at trial.

The prosecution will have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) she aided the felon.


She would, however, violate § 922(g)(1) and § 2 by aiding and abetting a felon to possess a firearm. Count Three charges her with the latter.


If she failed to secure it on the house from his possession she is going to have a problem, especially if she new he was a felon.

Link Posted: 1/6/2012 9:26:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2012 9:27:42 AM EDT by BobP]
Originally Posted By brickeyee:
Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
Originally Posted By wreckinturn4:

Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.


WTF?


I've looked up the quoted code and I can't figure it out.

Does it mean that nobody can make a firearm (any firearm) without paying the registration tax? How does that jive with all the folks with 80% receivers and such?


ETA: So wait. It's called "machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms" but it never defines "firearm" as being an NFA weapon, it just uses "firearm" the whole time. I assumed the tax only applied to NFA weapons, so why do they just use "firearm" throughout the entire code?


For purposes of the NFA, a " firearm" is defined as a machine gun in the entire law.

You cannot read just one portion of statute law without also looking at any definitions used in the law.

Unless the law defines a term explicitly they do have their normal meaning.

The NFA defines "firearm" explicitly in other sections.

He had an unregistered machine gun, or other NFA defined weapon (sawed off shotgun, etc.).


The ruling says she needs to defend against the count at trial.

The prosecution will have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) she aided the felon.


She would, however, violate § 922(g)(1) and § 2 by aiding and abetting a felon to possess a firearm. Count Three charges her with the latter.


If she failed to secure it on the house from his possession she is going to have a problem, especially if she new he was a felon.


She should be ok if she took steps to prevent him from possessing. Not sure what level of prevention needed, however.

This reminded me of G. Gorden Liddy. He was asked about self defense for felons. He said he couldn't posses a firearm, but his wife had an awesome collection
Top Top