TexasCHLforum.com

I have a buddy who is wanting to get his CHL but he is worried since he lives with his brother who is a felon, he might not be able to get one or have a gun at his residence. I have no idea. What do you guys think?

A safe for a pistol can be had for under $100.

Until recently, I would have said your buddy would have no problems, though the felon might. But there was a court case recently where the woman was convicted for making the gun accessible to the felon. IIRC she won the appeal because the ATF failed to show she did anything active to aid the felon in possession, just she had the gun and he knew about it.

I would not recommend the risk, even knowing you should win on the appeal.

I would like to see links for that case.

I would never suggest a person not get a CHL because of fear of being prosecuted for someone else’s actions.

AFAIK, the background check for a CHL applicant includes only the applicant, not his relations. So I don't see a problem with obtaining a CHL.

As for the live-in brother . . . a safe or sturdy lockbox which the felonious relative doesn't have access to would seem to be a satisfactory solution - along with both of you keeping your mouths shut about it. And it should go without saying that there should be NO Facebook or Myspace pix of brother holding the pistol.

(If felonious brother can't keep his trap shut . . . have him live elsewhere.)

SmoothFox wrote:Why in the world would you want to live with a felon?? Brother or not!!!!

Maybe he is former Enron Exec and has a nice pad.

I would say that's a gray area of the law. It would be clearly legal if he lived in an unattached part of the home. For example, some people have a tiny servant's quarters on their property. Some houses have unattached garages with a small studio above it. Or, if the two brothers lived in separate duplexes. It would be clearly illegal if there is no gun safe with a combination kept secret from the felon. I suggest that you keep antique black powder guns for home protection (legal for felons to own) and keep the modern guns locked at your local gun club (or bank safety deposit box if all you have are pistols).

This is a nice gun. With practice, you can shoot a single action revolver as fast as a semi-auto. Just ask any cowboy action shooter. As for the lower ammo capacity... just carry two of them.


Draw and fire 5 shots accurately in one second with a single action revolver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgav7mNzIYo

In my mind it is purely a judgement call, and should not be a legal question (though I would make sure any weapons were constantly locked-up or in my custody).

I have no felons in my family, though I have known some. Telling a person not to let flesh and blood live with them because they are a felon is beyond the pale. Certainly there are personalities, family or not that I would not let in my home but there is a wide spectrum of reasons one could become a felon that are not likely to repeat or be a threat. There are also plenty that have never been convicted that I wouldn't trust in the same neighborhood.

There are those that also have sought redemption. But why don't I drive them back into their old ways by denying them viable shelter. The OP has to judge the risk/benefits of residing with this person. Just follow the law, keep the weapon(s) under your positive control and inaccessible.

drjoker wrote:color=#FF0000] I suggest that you keep antique black powder guns for home protection (legal for felons to own) [/color]

This is true in Texas, but varies state to state. Under federal law, black powder guns are not considered to be 'firearms' under the strict definition. Therefore they are not regulated in the same manner as other types of firearms. In Texas (and some other states) felons may own black powder guns. However, all other gun ownership is prohibited unless their civil rights including the right to own a firearm have been restored by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. In other states, convicted felons are prohibited from owning black power weapons (Indiana and Missouri are 2 examples.) So, make sure to check the state laws to be sure they can legally posses a black powder weapon.

SmoothFox wrote:Why in the world would you want to live with a felon?? Brother or not!!!!

There are felons . . . and there are felons.

Jeff Dahmer was a felon - he killed and ate people.

Martha Stewart IS a felon - her "crime" was lying to investigators while not under oath.

Quite a difference.

shootthesheet wrote:I would like to see links for that case.

I would never suggest a person not get a CHL because of fear of being prosecuted for someone else’s actions.

US vs. Huet.

Also: Second Amendment Protects Gun Possession by the Housemates of Felons by Eugene Volokh.

srothstein's memory is a little discombobulated. Woman had live-in boyfriend who was a felon. She owned a SKS rifle (a Yugo, I believe).
She won at trial court, actually before the trial started -- her indictment was dismissed by the federal district court.

Interesting case. The government repeatedly claimed "militia activity" and "assault rifle" in the indictments, but the 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 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.”

Frankly, the case reads like a serious case of overreaching to find milita boogiemen with "assault" rifles...

SmoothFox wrote:Why in the world would you want to live with a felon?? Brother or not!!!!

Ever fudged things a bit on your taxes?

ELB wrote:srothstein's memory is a little discombobulated.

It happens. Especially during finals week. Believe me, my mind was not on guns or this case the past two weeks.

I appreciate your finding the case and clarifying it. I knew I had read it recently but I could not find it again. I have been dealing with so many appellate and Supreme Court cases for class that I guess I jumped to thinking appellate and overturned.

srothstein wrote:

ELB wrote:srothstein's memory is a little discombobulated.

It happens. Especially during finals week. Believe me, my mind was not on guns or this case the past two weeks....

Oh, I understand. It's been a long time since I had a "finals week," but I still remember it. Not with pleasure.

By chance I had just read about the case a few days before and remembered the blogs that pointed it out.