Living with Felon restricts non-felon's right to guns?

[ELB]

Variations of this question have appeared here in the past, and some of the replies (two of them mine) point to US vs Huet.

Previous threads include:

living with a felon...
Multiple-felon traveling with CHL holder and guns
Wife interested in CHL, but Hubby is an ex-con...

There is a new wrinkle in that US v Huet. First some background about it:

Woman had live-in boyfriend who was a felon. She owned a SKS rifle (a Yugo, I believe).
She was indicted for aiding and abetting a felon in possession of a firearm. She and her boyfriend came to the attention of the Feds because of a drug investigation, but as far as I can determine, were not charged with any drug offenses.

The government repeatedly claimed "militia activity" and "assault rifle" in the indictments, but the federal District Court correctly determined that an SKS is not an assault rifle, and there was no evidence of legal or illegal militia activity. In fact, the court looked at the rifle and the law carefully, and concluded it was not only NOT an assault rifle, but a "'curio' or collector's rifle." Also, that the government was stepping on girlfriend's 2A right to have a firearm in her home.

Her boyfriend was hit with two charges, and apparently plea bargained a guilty plea to one of them for felon-in-possession. He was sentenced to time served and released; the court noted that he spent longer in jail waiting for trial than he would have normally been sentenced for the conviction. I suspect he plea-bargained in order to get out of jail, figuring that winning on principle would not help much since he was already a felon.

The government charged girlfriend with aiding and abetting boyfriend to possess the weapon. The District Court noted that the government presented NO evidence she ever did anything to make it available to him. They merely stated it was her rifle in her house, the boyfriend lived there, ergo she was guilty. The undercover agent claimed she was angry once with boyfriend for "showing off" the rifle to someone; but undercover agent also testified that when boyfriend invited the undercover agent into the house (and presumably did not know the agent was a fed), and the agent saw the rifle in girlfriend's room, boyfriend told the agent “That’s her SKS rifle, I’m not allowed to have a gun.”

The trial court dismissed her indictment.

Now for the wrinkle:

The government appealed the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and it reversed the District Court's decision, thus reinstating the indictment against her. You can read about it here: The Second Amendment and Housemates of Felons.

Based on my first scan through the decision comments at the link above, and the decision itself (US v Huet (Third Ct), it appears that it is saying that as long as the government comes up with an indictment against you that fills out the form properly, regardless of whether they cite any proof, you have to go to trial, so the District Court erred by looking beyond the indictment to see if it was propped up by any evidence.

[jmoney]

I had to write a paper last semester (my first semester of law school). It dealt with constructive possession, and one of the cases I used dealt with a felon living with his girlfriend who had a firearm. Now this was in the 2nd district so it wouldn't apply here but the felon was in fact found guilty of constructive possession of the firearm even though it did not belong to him. As far as I know the girlfriend didn't receive any charges. For constructive possession that court looked to whether someone had knowledge, with the power and intent to exercise dominion and control over something. He knew where the firearm was, and was domiciled at the residence. My interpretation would be if you have a felon domiciled with you, it is very likely that you cannot have firearms in the house. Might be different for Texas but I doubt it. I'm sure Charles could answer this question much better than I could.

[SRH78]

Just a thought but it seems to me that just how accessible the firearm is to the felon could make a big difference. For example, it would be extremely easy for them to access to an unlocked and openly visible firearm, whereas, it would be extremely difficult for them to gain access to one locked up in a good safe.

[WildBill]

Just a thought but it seems to me that just how accessible the firearm is to the felon could make a big difference. For example, it would be extremely easy for them to access to an unlocked and openly visible firearm, whereas, it would be extremely difficult for them to gain access to one locked up in a good safe.

This is true, but some people would circumvent this by supplying the combination or key to the safe, and deny then that the felon had access to the firearm.

[Weg]

Man, if that is true, G. Gordon Liddy is in big trouble. He used to always brag on his radio show about how he did not own any firearms, but his wife owned lots of them.

[WildBill]

Man, if that is true, G. Gordon Liddy is in big trouble. He used to always brag on his radio show about how he did not own any firearms, but his wife owned lots of them.

Do you actually think that G. Gordon doesn't have access to them?

[SRH78]

Just a thought but it seems to me that just how accessible the firearm is to the felon could make a big difference. For example, it would be extremely easy for them to access to an unlocked and openly visible firearm, whereas, it would be extremely difficult for them to gain access to one locked up in a good safe.

This is true, but some people would circumvent this by supplying the combination or key to the safe, and deny then that the felon had access to the firearm.

Of course they could. They could also provide easy access to a firearm that is not at that residence. Ultimately(not legaly), being under the same roof has little to do with real access.

[ELB]

...For constructive possession that court looked to whether someone had knowledge, with the power and intent to exercise dominion and control over something. He knew where the firearm was, and was domiciled at the residence. My interpretation would be if you have a felon domiciled with you, it is very likely that you cannot have firearms in the house. ...

Were the guns locked up in some manner or were they simply in a closet, drawer, standing in the corner... IOW, with no physical barrier between felon and firearm?

[jmoney]

The safe is an interesting though, if I have some time Ill jump on westlaw and see if I can find any cases where that was involved. I still think though guns inside a residence were a felon is domiciled probably a no go.