Gail Buckner is also looking at a charge of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. [More]They sound like all-around quality folks, don't they? An "Only One" married to a felon--interesting dichotomy going on in that household.
Y'know, I've wondered but never looked into how a prohibited person can live under the same roof as someone who has guns. Since that's federally-mandated, I wonder what the workaround is...
Anybody know?
For more important insight on this issue, watch "Raising Arizona." Hilarious fun.
ReplyDeleteParole Board chairman: You're not just telling us what we want to hear?
ReplyDeleteH.I.: No, sir, no way.
Parole Board member: 'Cause we just want to hear the truth.
H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.
Parole Board chairman: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?
H.I.: Yes, sir.
Parole Board chairman: Okay, then.
"I've wondered but never looked into how a prohibited person can live under the same roof as someone who has guns."You have to live with an "only one". Usually, they'll just take the guns from the non-prohibited person and charge the prohibited person with possession.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, the courts actually put up with this garbage.
In listening to a talk show they had a self-identified federal prosecutor called in regarding another matter but this issue came up. His explanation was that so long as the prohibited person did not have readily available access to the firearm, for example the non-prohibited person kept the firearm in a locked safe in a room designated as belonging to them, i.e. their office, and they were the only one to have a key, then it would likely be legal. He wasn't firm on the standing and threw in many disclaimers saying that local laws may apply etc.
ReplyDeleteThat was Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and a few other people called up soon after with slightly different opinions on the matter. It's really confusing, especially when the felon is married, and therefore jointly entitled to things within a household.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember exactly which show, but it may have been in March?
Good old felon boy Gordon Liddy used to brag about Mrs. Liddy's guns, as he was and I presume is a 'prohibited person'.
ReplyDeleteIn NJ, a spouse's visit to a marriage counselor could result in a mental health dq under NJ code, and police chiefs with almost unlimited discretion to deny purchase/possess approval have denied the not prohibited spouse under such situations, but probably never to an 'only one.'
IANAL and all that, but as best i've been able to work out based on second- and umpteenth-hand reports, the workaround appears to be "don't make any waves, and nobody in the house do anything to draw attention of the authorities, and you'll hopefully be ignored".
ReplyDeleteI hope our returning troops with PTSD, people ACCUSED of domestic violence but not charged or convicted, those SUSPECTED of emotional illness, and those THOUGHT to be dangerous right-wing conservatives, get the same interpretation. Last I heard, all guns had to be REMOVED FROM THE HOME. Well, not for the RWCs, yet, but you know.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it IS time to go from being advertising blimps to submarines. Tick tock.
Even more interesting, some police departments have policies for officers associating with known felons.
ReplyDeleteIn a community property state, what's his is hers if the property was acquired during the marriage. That fact alone should make for easy pickings for an enterprising fed prosecutor.
ReplyDeleteThe feds have also been known to file "constructive possession" charges against a person who has at some time in his life been convicted of a felony even if all the person actually possesses or has access to is a key to a house where a firearm is stored, even if the alleged possessor isn't aware of the presence of the firearm.
What "dichotomy"? They play different positions on the same team.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have been told in conversations with only ones (so take that at what its worth) barring any local or state statutes to the contrary, generally as long as the prohibited person does not have any access or contact with guns, then they can be in the home. Parolees and their spouses, on the other hand are subject to limitations of the parole and may be required to remove them for the duration of the probation.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the spouse of a felon must not allow access to the prohibited person but is not otherwise prohibited from possessing them. However, if the prohibited person is on probation and the terms specify that there can be no firearms in the home, then all must agree and adhere to the terms of the probation.
My in-laws had a situation about 10 years ago with a child/spouse felon issue.
I reckon that it all depends upon how badly the fed prosecutor wants to mess with an individual.
ReplyDeleteI sat in a fed courtroom and watched while an inmate had several years tacked onto his sentence for possession of a firearm. He was arrested on a parole violation unconnected to firearms while visiting his dad. His dad had several firearms in a room separate from the room where he was arrested. The unlucky fellow was deemed to have been in the presence and possession of firearms while on parole.
It would follow; that someone on felony parole could be prosecuted for accompanying his wife and kids to Wal-Mart to shop for groceries, depending upon the whim of a fed agent and/or prosecutor.