Living with Felon restricts non-felon's right to guns?
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:49 pm
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.
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.