Strictly put, the felon is not allowed to "possess" firearms. That means
that the answer to your last question is a strong NO, as touching,
handling, etc. firearms is considered possession.
Interesting - possession, then, is defined as somehow being in physical control?
But I still wonder about the relationship when the felon happens to move into the home of someone who has NOT given up any of his or her rights
Everything less than that falls into a gray enforcement area. G. Gordon Liddy famously joked to his listening audience that as a convicted felon, he was not allowed to possess firearms, but his wife had a magnificent collection and "some of them are stored on my side of the bed."
Which, to me, is the ultimate insanity in this matter. Are we to suppose that he never touched them?
Closer to home, I worked for years with an upstanding gentleman who was a world champion in pistol silhouette, an NRA training counselor, and an instructor in rifle pistol and shotgun for several area gun clubs. However, under state law (Massachusetts), he was unable to own, transport, or carry handguns simply because he was a Scot who had never applied for
American citizenship. So all the handguns were purchased by and registered to his wife, who accompanied him to his classes (she was also an instructor), and so the charade was sufficient for years. (As a non-citizen and not a felon, he was NOT forbidden to possess or use handguns on private property, which made this workable.)
Why is this not applicable to a felon? It's a charade, anyway. Joe Dokes gets out of the Federal system, for a white collar crime/felony of whatever sort, and moves in with Mary Sisterneverbad. Mary's hobby is collecting firearms and hunting, never mind self defense, and she has 50 guns. See below.
The usual test is, "Are the firearms accessible to or under the control of a prohibited person?" For example, if the "law-abiding" spouse keeps all firearms in a safe, this should satisfy the law... unless the other partner also has the combination to the safe.
That's a worse charade. If the safe is locked it is locked; who cares if the felon-spouse has the combination or the key so long as there is no "touching". In G. Gordon's case he clearly was outside this test.
Court orders and plea agreements complicate the situation, as they have the force of "private law." I know of several cases where parents, spouses, etc., were ordered by the court to divest themselves of all their firearms as a condition of allowing their convicted children/spouses to return home. Depending on how they are written (and the family probably has zero room to
negotiate) this may result in them having to sign away their rights permanently, even after the parole period is over. See example below.
I have seen this myself. It has nagged at me ever since I plea bargained a man (pre-guidelines case; no mandatory time if I could convince the judge and I did succeed at that) for a paper crime and after he got his suspended sentence we filled out all sorts of paperwork, part of which was the obvious surrender of his gun rights but his wife had to sign as well. I was simply boiling at the time.
It seems to me that the whole thing is a giant charade. If Joe Dokes goes to the range with Mary Sisterneverbad why would the Feds care if he fired a gun, anyway? And how would they know?
I guess I'm just venting; this issue has me very frustrated.
Thanks, y'all!
***GRJ***
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
