Newcomer looking for advice!

[RachelMarie]

Hi everyone. Wondering if I could get some help here! I'm a 25 year old mother looking to buy a gun for self protection. I have done my research and pretty much know what I'm looking to get. The problem is (or may not be) that it just dawned on me that my husband has a felony. This felony took place over 20 years ago (before I met him) when he was 18 and it had nothing to do with guns or violence, and has not been in trouble since. Am I still going to be able to get a carrying permit? Or is his record going to affect mine due to being married? Just looking for help...I'm not sure who to contact to ask! Thanks in advance!
*Rachel

 

[paddling_man]

I would be surprised if his felony effected your ability to get a permit and/or pass a NICS check.

There might be issues with firearms in the house and his status as a felon. Not sure...

Attorney is the short answer but I understand funds can be tight. Hopefully others can help.

(AND, WELCOME!!)

 

[r3126]

I'm sure you will get all sorts of advice and assistance. I would submit that your purchase (and it need be for you - not for your husband) will be routine as long as YOU are qualified in all respects. The same applies for your license from the State. Make sure you get good advice on the model and calibre of your purchase. There are lots out there that have all sorts of advice and a lot of it might be wrong for you.

There are lots of highly qualified people here that are willing to help so ask lots of questions.

 

[Arm America]

Welcome to what I have found to be a great source of information.

I don't think the ISP can deny your application to carry without mental concerns or
a felony thats in "your" name. Of course, you must be listed as an Indiana resident.

I will add that your Husband in no way can be in possession of any weapon or ammunition unless he is able to have his conviction removed.

 

[Scutter01]

There might be issues with firearms in the house and his status as a felon. Not sure...

 

[RachelMarie]

Thanks for the fast replies. And this gun is for ME only. I understand he cant use it and to be quite honest, I had to talk him into letting me have one. He's never been fond of guns. I used to go out and shoot once in a while with family members when I was really young and always wanted to get back into it. Really just looking for a hobby "I" can do to get away from time to time. lol. And it sure doesnt help that it's a good source of self protection.

I am an indiana resident (Fort Wayne). I really freaked me out earlier when I though about it. Didnt take it into consideration until now. Thanks for the feedback...I'm glad I dont have to kick the hubby to the curb....(JUST KIDDING).

 

[RachelMarie]

I would be surprised if his felony effected your ability to get a permit and/or pass a NICS check.

There might be issues with firearms in the house and his status as a felon. Not sure...

Attorney is the short answer but I understand funds can be tight. Hopefully others can help.

(AND, WELCOME!!)

How do I check into this? Is there a website I can go to to look this up that you know of?

I dont think at this time, an Attorney would be the way to go for me...BUT I dont want to know before I march my butt in there.

THANKS for the Welcome!

 

[paddling_man]

http://www.ai.org/isp/files/firearms_FAQ_02_08.pdf

Can the spouse of a felon own and possess a firearm?

Can the spouse of a felon own and posess a handgun in the same household? - Yahoo! Answers

In a word: No.

If you have access to, or control over the space in which the firearm is being stored or transported, you will be considered to be in possession of a firearm.

This question has been asked and affirmed in dozens of cases decided in district and appellate courts- don't even bother trying, you stand zero chance of prevailing.

Since it's a Federal Crime, a felon in possession of a firearm is looking at 5-10 years in Leavenworth if convicted, more if it is in conjunction with the commission of another crime, such as a parole violation. (Yes, they can and will nail you twice for the same crime, and use that as an excuse to hit you with the max for each conviction.)

Absolutely not.

There is a legal term called "constructive possession". If you is in control of the property, you can he held responsible for anything present.

As a spouse, you will be considered equally and legally in control of your household.
Source(s):
17 years law enforcement

 

[paddling_man]

An excerpt of the case the one respondent was trying to use to effectively set precedent that a married couple assume joint possession of items in a communal household.

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-1882
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Alfred James Clark, *
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: December 15, 2004
Filed: May 26, 2005
___________
Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

I.
The St. Paul police responded to a series of 911 calls made from Clark’s
apartment. In December 2001, the first call was made by Loretha Cager, the daughter
of Sherry Clark (Sherry), Clark’s wife. Clark had severely beaten Sherry, had pointed
a gun at her head and threatened her, and had fired a round at the floor. Ms. Cager
reported the domestic violence and stated that the man involved might still be armed.
Clark was arrested and held on state charges, but was released on bond when Sherry
bailed him out and signed an affidavit denying that he had assaulted her. In March
2002, Sherry called 911, stating that Clark was again threatening her, despite the nocontact
order in place against him. When the police arrived, they noticed that the
apartment was in disarray but that nobody was home. An hour later, Sherry called
again from the apartment, stating that Clark had destroyed the apartment and
threatened her, and relating that he had fired a gun at her several months prior. Upon
their arrival, Sherry admitted the responding officers and gave them consent to search
the apartment. She also searched for the gun Clark had used to threaten her in
December, which she had previously hidden in the entertainment center. When she
was unable to find it, she led the officers into the master bedroom and directed them
to the attic closet, stating that Clark often hid things in the closet. One of the officers
searched the closet and found a sawed off shotgun and a handgun in a closed duffle
bag. Noticing that neither was the gun she was looking for, Sherry resumed her
search of the entertainment center and found a handgun, which she gave to the
officers.
Clark was charged in a four-count indictment. Counts one and two charged
him with being a felon in possession of ammunition and a handgun in violation of 18
U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Counts three and four involved his possession of the sawed-off
shotgun. Clark filed several pretrial motions, including a motion to suppress the
3 The Honorable Jonathan Lebedoff, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for
the District of Minnesota.
-3-
evidence found in the attic closet because, he argued, Sherry did not have the
authority to consent to the search. A magistrate judge3 recommended that the motion
to suppress be denied because he found “no indication that [Clark] had exclusive use
of the closet or that Ms. Clark did not have access to, or control over, the space.”
Report and Recommendation of July 1, 2002, at 9. The district court adopted the
recommendation and entered an order denying the motion. D.Ct. Order of Aug. 1,
2002.

Clark also appeals from the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the
firearms that officers retrieved from their search of the attic closet. He argues that his
wife did not have authority to consent to a search of the closet. We review the facts
supporting the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress for clear error and
review its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Oates, 173 F.3d 651, 656 (8th
Cir. 1999).
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit entry into a person’s home when
voluntary consent has been obtained, either from the person whose property is
searched or from someone with common authority over the premises. Illinois v.
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990). In assessing the reasonableness of a search
based on consent, we ask “whether the facts available would have justified a
reasonable officer in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the
premises.” United States v. Czeck, 105 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). The
officer’s conclusion that the consenting individual had authority to consent need not
always be correct, but must always be reasonable. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 185-86.
It was reasonable for the officers to believe that Sherry had authority to consent
to the search of the attic closet. The house belonged to Sherry and Clark, and
the unlocked closet was attached to the bedroom they shared. See United States v.
Moran, 214 F.3d 950, 951-52 (8th Cir. 2000). The items inside the closet were not
clearly labeled or specifically identified as belonging only to Clark. See id.; Czeck,
105 F.3d at 1239 (noting that everything in the room except the toolbox, which the
officers obtained a warrant to search, appeared to belong to the person consenting).
We agree with the magistrate judge that Sherry’s statement that Clark hid things in
the closet did not establish that she lacked access to the space or that Clark had
exclusive access to it. See Report and Recommendation of July 1, 2002, at 9.

I would NOT let this stop me until I knew absolutely for certain that my right to possess a handgun in my home was out-of-the-question. It would, however, make me tread cautiously.

 

[Bigum1969]

This situation shows the challenges that the felony restriction on gun ownership can cause.

 

[Indyvet]

My opinion is that you should have no problems possesing a firearm. As long as you do not make an issue about your husband's situation, are purchasing the handgun for him, he does not have possession of it, I would not think it is an issue. When you apply for a permit or go through a nics check for purc hasing the firearm, they will not ask about your husband. They only check you. You might look into speaking to an attorney or maybe someone in law enforcement to be sure. Loks like by the replies you can see both sides of the coin on this one.

 

[r3126]

Paddling_man, super research and post. I stand corrected. I was sure someone would have this down pat.

 

[kludge]

Since the felony is more than 20 years old you can apply for relief. I don't know how often this actually happens though.

I know that G Gordon Liddy's wife owns several guns.


IC 35-47-2-20
Removal of disability under this chapter
Sec. 20. (a) A full pardon from the governor of Indiana for:
(1) a felony other than a felony that is included in IC 35-42; or
(2) a violation of this chapter;
removes any disability under this chapter imposed because of that offense, if fifteen (15) years have elapsed between the time of the offense and the application for a license under this chapter.
(b) A conditional pardon described in IC 11-9-2-4 for:
(1) a felony; or
(2) a violation of this chapter;
removes a disability under this chapter if the superintendent determines after an investigation that circumstances have changed since the pardoned conviction was entered to such an extent that the
pardoned person is likely to handle handguns in compliance with the law.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.6; P.L.148-1987, SEC.6.



IC 35-47-4-7
Persons prohibited from possessing a firearm; restoration of right to possess a firearm
Sec. 7. (a) Notwithstanding IC 35-47-2, IC 35-47-2.5, the restoration of the right to serve on a jury under IC 33-28-5-18, or the restoration of the right to vote under IC 3-7-13-5, and except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (f), a person who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence may not possess a firearm after the person's release from imprisonment or lawful detention.
(b) Not earlier than five (5) years after the date of conviction, a person who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence may petition the court for restoration of the person's right to possess a firearm. In determining whether to restore the person's right to possess a firearm, the court shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether the person has been subject to:
(A) a protective order;
(B) a no contact order;
(C) a workplace violence restraining order; or
(D) any other court order that prohibits the person from possessing a firearm.
(2) Whether the person has successfully completed a substance abuse program, if applicable.
(3) Whether the person has successfully completed a parenting class, if applicable.
(4) Whether the person still presents a threat to the victim of the crime.
(5) Whether there is any other reason why the person should not possess a firearm, including whether the person failed to satisfy a specified condition under subsection (c) or whether the person has committed a subsequent offense.
(c) The court may condition the restoration of a person's right to possess a firearm upon the person's satisfaction of specified conditions. (d) If the court denies a petition for restoration of the right to possess a firearm, the person may not file a second or subsequent petition until one (1) year has elapsed after the filing of the most recent petition.
(e) A person has not been convicted of a crime of domestic violence for purposes of subsection (a) if the conviction has been expunged or if the person has been pardoned.
(f) The right to possess a firearm shall be restored to a person whose conviction is reversed on appeal or on postconviction review at the earlier of the following:
(1) At the time the prosecuting attorney states on the record that the charges that gave rise to the conviction will not be refiled.
(2) Ninety (90) days after the final disposition of the appeal or the postconviction proceeding.
As added by P.L.118-2007, SEC.37.

There may be other hoops to jump through too, and I can't promise any of the above applies in your situation.

 

[RachelMarie]

Holy crap...I'm pissed. I will be doing more research.....ugh. It is so funny that something that happened 20+ years ago and had NOTHING to do with violence could cause problems now. It's stupid. I wonder if I could own guns and stor them at another house (family members home?). Anyways...thanks for the heads up...I'm going to keep trying!

 

[paddling_man]

Paddling_man, super research and post. I stand corrected. I was sure someone would have this down pat.

No, no, no. Don’t take my word for it or sources on the ‘net. Keep digging and looking. I would say the data at hand would indicate to be cautious. Definitely not a slam dunk.

Can you buy one? Yes!
Get a carry permit? Based on what you’ve submitted about yourself, YES.
Would your husband get in deep doo-doo if you ever had to defend yourself with it in your home and he was present? If the prosecuter wanted to, the evidence would indicate YES. Depends class of felony, etc..

I wonder if I could own guns and stor them at another house (family members home?). Anyways...thanks for the heads up...I'm going to keep trying!

The issue isn't your legal status to own a gun but his legal jeopardy if it passes the legal test for his being a "felon in possession of a firearm."

Could you own a gun and store it elsewhere? Sure. A whole other can of worms regarding not being in control of a firearm... maybe?? You would have to be certain it passes the legal test that he had ZERO access, legal or physical, to the place of storage. Again, I'm just throwing stuff out there. An engineer, not an attorney. (Not even a good engineer, at that. )

 

[Roadie]

First, let me say . This is a great place, I am glad you found us.

I also did some research and found similar answers to what kludge posted. It appears for your husbands legal safety, he would have to have his "rights restored". There are several "Ask a Lawyer" type websites out there. It can't hurt to shoot them an email and see what they say.

Good luck!

 

[Scutter01]

(Not even a good engineer, at that. )

Hey, don't sell yourself short! Those trains won't drive themselves, you know!

 

[RachelMarie]

Again..thanks for all the info. I'm pissed, yes. But dont get me wrong...I will do all the research I can and ask as many people as possible until I find out what I'm looking for. I will not give up on this because it is something I want REALLY bad. I wonder if it would help if I dont tell my husband when I get it and hide it where he cant find it...lol. Legally speaking...probably not!
I will def talk to the hubby and see what HE can do. The felony was in the state of Florida so I'm not sure what he could do about it being in Indiana now! I know he can get the felony expunged but has never had a need to do it. He's never ran into problems with his felony because he's been legal ever since. So maybe that is the route we'll take? I'm not sure yet. I've got a lot of researching to do....
I do thank you guys for taking the time to give me your advice. Hopefully at somepoint I WILL be the owner of a pretty little number! LOL

 

[RachelMarie]

Again, I'm just throwing stuff out there. An engineer, not an attorney. (Not even a good engineer, at that. )

Though I dont know you...I get a gut feeling that the above statement is FLASE!

Thank you for your responces. For my hub's sake...it better be legal, or he might just be replacable! lol

 

[Chefcook]

Again, I'm just throwing stuff out there. An engineer, not an attorney. (Not even a good engineer, at that. )

Though I dont know you...I get a gut feeling that the above statement is FLASE!

Thank you for your responces. For my hub's sake...it better be legal, or he might just be replacable! lol

Its unfortunate that a man can lose his inalienable rights over BS. That's just another way they take every inch they can get. Some of the things that constitute a felony today are not even crimes that should effect your 2nd amendment rights. You can score a felony for traffic violations if they are deemed to be habitual. I have little faith in the system. If a man is deemed safe to be on our streets and part of our community then he should have the same rights as anyone else. Otherwise he should be dead or in prison...