My dad got into some drug trouble when he got back from vietnam as a 21 year old. He got convicted of a california state felony. Now (40 + years later) my folks live in texas. My mom has been talking about getting a gun. We know that dad can't own a gun but can my mother own one if she lives in the same house?
Can mom have a gun if dad is a felon?
- Thread starter whatever
- Start date
- Status
splattergun
Member
If your mother is not a felon, her gun rights should not be affected. One can not be punished for another's transgression. Check state law for more specific info.
USAF_Vet
Member
Short answer: yes, she can own a gun.
Longer answer: she can own a gun, but he must not be allowed access to the firearm or ammunition at any time.
Longer answer: she can own a gun, but he must not be allowed access to the firearm or ammunition at any time.
F-111 John
Member
At age 61+, if there were no further brushes with the law, I'd be looking to restore my gun (and voting) rights.
1 old 0311-1
member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 181
Better check with a attorney but I believe that is a BIG FELONY.
NavyLCDR
member
Why would it be a big felony? Nowhere in the law does it say that a person married to a felon is prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.
WardenWolf
member
Yes, she can own a gun. However, when it is not in her direct control, it must be locked up to ensure he cannot access it. That is the law and the letter. He should try to get his rights restored. However, given how felonies back then were typically reserved for much more serious crimes than they are now, his chances of getting them back may be slim.
bikemutt
Member
Having voting rights restored but not the right to possess firearms is not uncommon. In WA for example, as long as a garden variety felon has met all the court ordered terms of their sentence, they have the right to vote. On the other hand, they need to petition a superior court to have their right to possess firearms restored.
TrickyDick
Member
My mother is a felon, and when her husband recently passed away, she, by law, owned the guns. but we did a quick fix and i took posession of said firearms, and now "own" them. but i would definitely check into your state laws.
MedWheeler
Member
I know of no requirement in law that says she "must lock any she owns up when she's not around." What the law prohibits are two acts: the possession of a firearm (or ammunition) by a convicted felon, and the furnishing or delivery of a firearm (or ammunition) to one.
Yes, it would be very wise for her to lock them up. Ultimately, though, the responsibility lies with him, just as he can enter a gun shop legally, but runs afoul of the law as soon as he picks up a firearm (or ammunition.) Leaving a firearm where a convicted felon can access it, without such access being the desired result, is not the same as "furnishing" or "delivering" it to the felon.
At minimum, they should be stored in a place within the residence that can be argued as "hers", such as a dressing or sewing room, if not locked in a place to which only she was access.
Yes, it would be very wise for her to lock them up. Ultimately, though, the responsibility lies with him, just as he can enter a gun shop legally, but runs afoul of the law as soon as he picks up a firearm (or ammunition.) Leaving a firearm where a convicted felon can access it, without such access being the desired result, is not the same as "furnishing" or "delivering" it to the felon.
At minimum, they should be stored in a place within the residence that can be argued as "hers", such as a dressing or sewing room, if not locked in a place to which only she was access.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
I was listining to G. Gordon Liddy's radio show a few years back when he said that as a convicted fellon he was not allowed to own firearms, however "Mrs. Liddy has a rather extensive collection."
mljdeckard
Member
According to Liddy, he had his rights restored.
When the Third Circuit looked at the issue a while ago, it let stand an indictment for aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of a gun by a prohibited persons in a situation in which a gun owner had a cohabitant who was a prohibited person.MedWheeler said:
The point in that case, United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), was that the gun the prohibited person was charged with possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):
NavyLCDR
member
There is no law against a felon owning firearms. There is no law against a felon selling the firearms that they own. A person can own an item and not be in possession of it.
BSA1
member
Frank,
US v. Huet, 665 F. 3d 588 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2012 - No. 10-4729. Argued October 26, 2011. Filed: January 5, 2012.
The Government appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing the indictment against Melissa Huet (“Huet”) with prejudice. Huet was charged with aiding and abetting possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 2. The District Court dismissed the indictment on the basis that: (1) it failed to state an offense for aiding and abetting under § 922(g)(1) and § 2; and (2) even if it did state an offense, the charge violated Huet’s rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse and remand.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=331
If I understand this correctly Huet was not guilty of aiding and abetting a felon and did have the right to own and possess a firearm in the home she shared with her husband.
US v. Huet, 665 F. 3d 588 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2012 - No. 10-4729. Argued October 26, 2011. Filed: January 5, 2012.
The Government appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing the indictment against Melissa Huet (“Huet”) with prejudice. Huet was charged with aiding and abetting possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 2. The District Court dismissed the indictment on the basis that: (1) it failed to state an offense for aiding and abetting under § 922(g)(1) and § 2; and (2) even if it did state an offense, the charge violated Huet’s rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse and remand.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=331
If I understand this correctly Huet was not guilty of aiding and abetting a felon and did have the right to own and possess a firearm in the home she shared with her husband.
Last edited:
You understand incorrectly.BSA1 said:
Huet was charged (indicted) with aiding and abetting a felon's illegal possession of a firearm. The District Court (the trial court in the federal system) dismissed the indictment, i. e., let her off on a matter of law.
The government appealed to the Third Circuit (the court of appeals level in the federal system) the dismissal of the indictment. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the government. So the Third Circuit reversed the ruling of the District Court dismissing the indictment. That reinstated the indictment and sent Huet back to the District Court to be tried for the crime she was charged with.
I my post, I provided the citation to the Third Circuit decision reinstating the indictment and sending Huet back to be tried. As the Third Circuit wrote (at pg. 603):
Last edited:
BSA1
member
OK, I got it now. District Court dismissed and Circuit Court reinstated and the case was remanded for a new trial. Any idea on the status of the case now? Is it undergoing appeal to the Supreme Court or back in District Court for a new trial?
Also I am trying to digest what the Circuit Court is saying about Heller and Marzzarella. Is the Court trying to limit the scope of the Supreme Court's rulings? The Court says "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." Is the aiding and abetting charge a result of Jones alledged other criminal activity to purchase illegal firearms and explosive devices for criminal activities and the potential manufacturing and detonation of explosive devices?"
Also I am trying to digest what the Circuit Court is saying about Heller and Marzzarella. Is the Court trying to limit the scope of the Supreme Court's rulings? The Court says "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." Is the aiding and abetting charge a result of Jones alledged other criminal activity to purchase illegal firearms and explosive devices for criminal activities and the potential manufacturing and detonation of explosive devices?"
Last edited:
Well the case wasn't exactly remanded for a new trial. There had not been a trial. The indictment had been dismissed on a motion.BSA1 said:
The case was remanded for trial, i. e., the initial trial.
I have no idea what happened. It's possible that the trial hasn't yet been held. But it's more likely that the case was resolved by a plea bargain.
BSA1
member
How is the Circuit Court ruling affected by a plea bargain? Obivously the case isn't going to the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure I would want this case heard by the Supreme Court due to Jone's alledged other criminal activity.
I'm not sure I would want this case heard by the Supreme Court due to Jone's alledged other criminal activity.
It isn't affected in any way.BSA1 said:
Hypnogator
Member
So, correct me if I'm wrong, Frank, the case may be pending, resolved by plea bargain, or the prosecutor just let it drop. The point is, the appellate court ruled that the indictment was valid. Thus, the OP's mother could be prosecuted for providing (access to) a weapon to a felon unless she keeps it locked up so that he does not have access to it when it is not in her immediate possession.
That is exactly right.Hypnogator said:
I doubt that the prosecutor would have let the matter drop since he won at the court of appeal.Hypnogator said:
I tend to think that a plea bargain was pretty likely. It's a pretty straightforward case, and the prosecutor probably has ample evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the material facts were true. So the defendant would be pretty certain to lose at trial. A plea bargain on reasonable terms would make good sense.
Steel Talon
Member
As I believe....
If he has no parole/probation tail ie lifetime etc. Then he is considered a prohibited possessor as a convicted felon. As long as the firearms are not in his active control such as Hunting, shooting range, conceal carry, armed work position, gun smith, traveling in car etc. He is ok and your mother is ok.
But since this is the internet call a legal service for a definitive answer.
First you need to check Texas law as to the mater. Generally your rights can be restored after 7 years with a clean record, but he will have to go to court to do so.
As to your mother, untill your dad has his rights restored I would not advise her to purchase one. It might be seen as a straw purchase of a firearm and threated as another felony. This may or may not be the fact, but since your dad was denied a year ago, it would be hard to prove the intent of your mother's purchase since she has never purchased one in the past.
Just my view.
Jim
As to your mother, untill your dad has his rights restored I would not advise her to purchase one. It might be seen as a straw purchase of a firearm and threated as another felony. This may or may not be the fact, but since your dad was denied a year ago, it would be hard to prove the intent of your mother's purchase since she has never purchased one in the past.
Just my view.
Jim
- Status
