Question...can my husband's felony prevent my carrying?

[packin'mom]

I have a CCW permit, I got married a year ago and during my husband's youth he did something very stupid...commited a felony. Because of that he is not allowed to be near handguns. My question is: Should I ever get pulled over for a traffic violation and have my weapon on me and have my husband in the car, would he get into trouble with the law? He says that they could take him to jail (he is still very much in favor of me carrying). I don't think that the fact that I'm with someone who has a felony record should prohibit me from being able to defend myself. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks!

[mropencarry]

This has been discussed many times here. I think we bottom-lined it with 'as long as he is not in full control of the weapon". Woe is you, however, if you get pulled over by some punky leo wanting to make some donut shop headlines.

[BobK]

Actually the correct term is "constructive possession" of the firearm.

You cannot get in trouble for anything unless they charge that you purposefully helped to obtain or provide the weapon for your husband. You do not want to fall astray of Section 2 of Title 18 of the United States Code where anyone who “directly commits an act or aid, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”

For example, if you leave the house and he is still in the house, then the firearm must be locked up where he has no access to it. If in a car, it should be on your person or locked up where he does not have the key. If you provide him access to the firearm, then you are enabling him to commit a federal felony and you can become complicit if it is purposeful.

Here is a discussion of a recent court case on this subject: Second Amendment Protects Gun Possession by the Housemates of Felons.

Now, if someone is on probation, it could be a whole different story if the probationary terms forbid firearms in the household (they usually do).

[sodbuster95]

For example, if you leave the house and he is still in the house, then the firearm must be locked up where he has no access to it. If in a car, it should be on your person or locked up where he does not have the key. If you provide him access to the firearm, then you are enabling him to commit a federal felony and you can become complicit if it is purposeful.

In the cited case from Volokh (interesting that this link has now shown up here twice in as many days), the Court seems to argue the opposite - that the passive, inchoate act of not securing it against the felon's access is insufficient to support charges against the non-felon and that more is necessary to lead to charges of "aiding and abetting" a felon in possession. I think the Court in this case argues that the "act" of giving a felon access must exceed the passive nature of not locking it up and assume a more active role of providing access in fact.

In this case, "[t]he government’s theory, disclosed on the record as set forth in defendant Hall’s proceedings, appears to be that defendant Huet passively aided and abetted Hall in his possession of the curio firearm which she owned and kept in their shared residence . . . [and] . . . the government’s theory in support of the aiding and abetting charge is that Huet owned the firearm and kept it unsecured in the home." The Court also notes that "at no time during the undercover investigation did agents observe either Huet or Hall actually handle the SKS rifle. They did not observe Huet handle or otherwise deliver the rifle to Hall or direct him to handle it. Importantly, at no time over the five (5) months period covered by the Indictment did agents observe Huet in the same room as the rifle. There is no allegation that it had been discharged, either legally or illegally, by either Hall or Huet, and in particular, there is no allegation that Huet directed Hall to discharge the rifle, or possess the rifle, nor that Huet was a “straw” purchaser of the rifle for Hall." The Court therefore finds that "[t]he facts in the Indictment fail to set forth any allegations to support the conclusion that defendant Huet aided and abetted defendant Hall in his unlawful possession of the SKS rifle." The Court also notes that "to permit this Indictment to go forward, the Court would be countenancing the total elimination of the right of a sane, non-felonious citizen to possess a firearm, in her home, simply because her paramour is a felon, and not because of some affirmative act taken by the citizen."

Although taking affirmative steps to secure access away from the felon may be wise on an individual basis, the Court here, at least, would argue that such steps in one's own home are unnecessary and cannot be constitutionally required. "[D]efendant Huet, not being a felon, insane, or otherwise disabled from possessing a gun, is entitled to possess a lawful firearm in her home, a place which is recognized as sacrosanct for purposes of Second Amendment analysis."

[packin'mom]

Thanks for the info! I still don't know if my husband could get into legal trouble by virtue of the fact that I carry a weapon. I wouldn't want him to get into any trouble with the law just because he would be with me while I'm carrying.

[BobK]

Thanks for the info! I still don't know if my husband could get into legal trouble by virtue of the fact that I carry a weapon. I wouldn't want him to get into any trouble with the law just because he would be with me while I'm carrying.

He won't as long as you are possessing the firearm. Don't give it to him to hold for you! He won't get into trouble for just being with you (unless he is still on probation).

[packin'mom]

Thanks for the info! I still don't know if my husband could get into legal trouble by virtue of the fact that I carry a weapon. I wouldn't want him to get into any trouble with the law just because he would be with me while I'm carrying.

He won't as long as you are possessing the firearm. Don't give it to him to hold for you! He won't get into trouble for just being with you (unless he is still on probation).

Thanks for the info. I would never give my weapon to anyone else to hold so that won't be an issue.

[OhioPaints]

You said "during his youth". Was he under 18?

FWIW, I've always thought it wrong that our laws prohibit basic human rights to someone who made a mistake many years ago and corrected their ways and followed the law. I do not think that a person should be prohibited from defending themselves and their family for a mistake 20-30-40-50 years earlier.

Ken

[packin'mom]

You said "during his youth". Was he under 18?

FWIW, I've always thought it wrong that our laws prohibit basic human rights to someone who made a mistake many years ago and corrected their ways and followed the law. I do not think that a person should be prohibited from defending themselves and their family for a mistake 20-30-40-50 years earlier.

Ken

No, he was in his early 20's. He's 58 now. He's been on the straight and narrow for 35 years now but still finds road blocks in his way due to his felony. Seems kinda strange that something like that took away his right to vote forever but those are the laws.

[Tweed Ring]

Has the individual in question ever tried to register to vote? I do volunteer work with ex-offenders who have felony convictions and they are eligible to register and vote. One of the pamphlets we distribute vis-a-vis voting rights is from the Ohio Secretary of State's Office.

[packin'mom]

Has the individual in question ever tried to register to vote? I do volunteer work with ex-offenders who have felony convictions and they are eligible to register and vote. One of the pamphlets we distribute vis-a-vis voting rights is from the Ohio Secretary of State's Office.

No he hasn't. He was told he would never have that privilege again. Is there a link to this pamphlet?

[Jake]

Packin'Mom,

If you ever need to go into an establishment that is posted as a CPZ and you have to disarm,should your husband be staying behind in the car you'll have to ensure that he has no access to the firearm.

This actually holds true to anyone left behind in the car that does not have a CHL.

[packin'mom]

Packin'Mom,

If you ever need to go into an establishment that is posted as a CPZ and you have to disarm,should your husband be staying behind in the car you'll have to ensure that he has no access to the firearm.

This actually holds true to anyone left behind in the car that does not have a CHL.

I knew about that law just wasn't sure if he could get into trouble by being with me when I was carrying. I also avoid establishments that are posted as CPZ like the plaque. If they want my business bad enough they'll take down their ridiculous signs!

[Tweed Ring]

Look at the SoS website. I just hand out the brochures when I have them.

[jabeatty]

Look at the SoS website. I just hand out the brochures when I have them.

.PDF file download.
Is this the one you hand out?