Spousal Usage in a SD/HD Situation

[this_is_nascar 162]

A discussion at the campground this past weekend raised an interesting question that I could not answer. So, here's the given facts.

 

- Husband and wife living at home.

- Wife has a valid FID.

- Wife owns a shotgun and a handgun.

- Husband does not have a valid FID nor is able to obtain one, due to his felony conviction.

- Husband has since paid his dues for his crime, etc.

 

Let's say the wife is at work and the husband is home and is the subject of life-threatening home invasion. He uses his wife's shotgun. Assuming that all things are otherwise legal (IE: it was as true "defend yourself" situation, etc) is he in legal trouble for using his wife's gun, in their house, without a FID and unable to obtain one?

 

Same question as it relates to a handgun.

[Tactical Turtle 11]

Not positive from a legal stand point.. but i would rather be judged by 12 then be carried by 6...

[BigHayden 77]

Felony conviction makes him a prohibited person. It would be illegal for him to even touch a firearm, let alone use one. And the wife could be charged for leaving a firearm accessible to a known prohibited person. This would apply in all 50 states, not just NJ.

[tj462nj 32]

considered an illegal transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person!

[this_is_nascar 162]

Felony conviction makes him a prohibited person. It would be illegal for him to even touch a firearm, let alone use one. And the wife could be charged for leaving a firearm accessible to a known prohibited person. This would apply in all 50 states, not just NJ.

 

 

Interesting. The fact that it's illegal for him to use the firearm, I can understand. Not sure I get the potential issue with the wife. If that's the case, you're basically saying having a convicted felon in anyone's home pretty much makes the others ineligible to possess a firearm in said home. That doesn't seem right.

 

Thanks to the others who commented as well.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Many, many years ago G. Gordon Liddy had a radio show that was broadcast on 770 AM WABC. G. Gordon, for those too young to remember, was one of the famous Watergate Burglars. G. Gordon had to plead to a felony conviction for the break-in and had a suspended or a very small sentence. He was an avid gun collector. He was famously quoted (on syndicated radio broadcast) as having transferred his entire collection to Mrs. Liddy, and when asked whether or not he was prepared to defend his household, he was quoted (on the same radio broadcast) as saying that he would be glad to show Mrs. Liddy how to properly operate one of his .45's to "put the Perp on a platter". I type this as a way of saying that in a TRUE emergency, even NJ law doesn't require any paperwork or FID of any type to take a weapon you own (or don't!) to defend yourself. So as is typical for NJ, the laws tend to contradict themselves.

 

As I read through a lot of these "Waht-If" threads in this section of the forum, it never ceases to amaze me how good we all are at splitting hairs. It really all boils-down to what does the County Prosecutor want to do based upon ALL of the evidence. If the Perp left evidence of a "severe" home invasion (used a deadly weapon, captured on CCTV security system, etc.) and had a rap sheet as long as your arm, the Prosecutor MAY take that and possible Jury Nullification into account. Defense of one's life is permissable in most people's minds so long as it is a "righteous" shoot.......

 

And as far as I know, there isn't yet a law on the books saying that a spouse has to be killed because of a home invasion. Sometimes common sense does win-out, like when folks try to "check" their hand guns at Ground Zero.......

[ruger9 0]

I used to love listening to Liddy. He wasn't one that long around here, and I was only able to listen on my cross-country trips. But that was a great show- I learned alot of stuff listening (it wasn't all politics like Limbaugh, et al). Remember the "Stacked and Packed" calendars??? REAL girls (submitted photos), not professional models.

[Kaiser7 33]

I think depending on the nature of the felony, and other circumstances, a Jury, even in NJ would have a hard time convicting such a person. If the felony was non-violent, like Check-forging or something (I'm sure any prosecutor would bring up a felony conviction in court.) That would have an impact on the decision of the Jury. I would think (and hope) that any sensible jury would not consider it a criminal offense to defend oneself in your own home, particularly if the burglar was armed as well, even if the person was "prohibited" that doesn't mean they don't have a right to self-defense.

 

Now, if they were a violent felon, rape, murder, w/e, then Jury opinion might swing against them, it would be easy for the prosecution to claim the defendant was a loose-cannon who used the opportunity to make a "legal-kill" or something.

 

Keep in mind, one of the back-door ways of gun control is to make a lot of non-violent crimes felonies. Illegally downloading music is now a felony. So this limits a lot of people who are sane and safe to own from owning firearms. I think it really depends on the nature of the felony the person was convicted of. Defense attorneys could easily say that the felony was something non-violent, and that the defendant is otherwise a safe and responsible member of society who genuinely feared for their life.

[BigHayden 77]

Interesting. The fact that it's illegal for him to use the firearm, I can understand. Not sure I get the potential issue with the wife. If that's the case, you're basically saying having a convicted felon in anyone's home pretty much makes the others ineligible to possess a firearm in said home. That doesn't seem right.

 

Thanks to the others who commented as well.

 

There have been court cases about this, and if memory serves me, it was determined that it was OK to have guns in the house if they were locked up and the prohibited person had no access to them (i.e. didn't know the combination to the gun safe). I'll see if I can find the link (no promises though).

[Dan 177]

Technically the ex-felon would be breaking federal and state law in terms of possession of the gun. The guy would have to personally weigh his risk that there are no laws to protect him. It would come down to the prosecutor if they wanted to pursue the charges. If that much time has passed, and the guy is reintegrated back into society, etc etc, maybe he can look into having his record expunged.

 

IMO, it would have to be very clearly a good shoot, with no questions that it was a justifiable shoot before a NJ prosecutor looks the other way in this regards. Like saving a busload of school children or something like that.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I used to love listening to Liddy. He wasn't one that long around here, and I was only able to listen on my cross-country trips. But that was a great show- I learned alot of stuff listening (it wasn't all politics like Limbaugh, et al). Remember the "Stacked and Packed" calendars??? REAL girls (submitted photos), not professional models.

 

Stacked and Packed takes me BACK! LOL! Thanks for the memories!

 

Dave

[Bt Doctur 188]

All goes back to being judged by 12 and forget what the NJ rules are. legal, illegal, locked or safe shouldn`t matter. your alive and their still dead.

Most guns are easier to obtain than prescription drugs. Look at how many gang banging felons shoot up New Brunswick every night.

Define all the laws that make you the felon vs. the right to protect YOUR life from early termination.I`ll take my chances in court.

Could Willy Suton have access to firearms?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

this thread will be full of

[Soju 153]

What is the point of worrying about whether your actions are 'legal' or not in a life or death situation? I frankly don't give a damn.

[this_is_nascar 162]

this thread will be full of

 

 

OK, I'll play. What makes you say that?

[this_is_nascar 162]

What is the point of worrying about whether your actions are 'legal' or not in a life or death situation? I frankly don't give a damn.

 

 

So, you believe that losing all you savings, property, family and friends (not to mentioned being jailed for many years) is better than being alive? I think some would argue with that.

 

 

Regardless, thanks for everyone's input. It appears, based on everyone's input, that the answer is that it would technically be illegal, based on the laws. How they may/many not be interpretted in a real situation, in a case like this, would be up for grabs.

[Soju 153]

So, you believe that losing all you savings, property, family and friends (not to mentioned being jailed for many years) is better than being alive? I think some would argue with that.

 

No, I think losing those things is better than being dead. Where did you get that idea from?

[Sandy 44]

These threads always get debated for 3 pages which only demonstrates that the law is grey..over and over again.

 

Smokin Dave said it best..someone has to bring up charges. If the guy had a non violent offense in his history and the shoot was definitely a clean one , the chances are more in his favor tan if he has a few assault and battery charges in his portfolio and there was any doubt as to his reason for shooting.

 

If his life was threatened and his wife was not home and he grabbed her shotgun to defend his life he and she may be brought up on charges but he would be alive. Then maybe a particular far left liberal loon department MAY bring charges after the fact. They may or may not be found guilty by a jury of their peers , if it goes to jury. Then there is a Lifetime movie called " A killing in NJ" and Merideth Baxter Birney and Tom Skeritt play the couple , and someone from the old cast of 90210 plays the perp who gets shot.

 

There is no definitive answer to these questions. If it was a clear home invasion and his life was in danger , I would hope that no charges would be brought. But the truth is nobody can say for sure . The law is written in such a way that it leaves a lot of room for individual discretion in the hands of the powers that be. So you just have to cross your fingers and hope a decent person in charge decides you did what you had to do to live .. but step one is SURVIVE . If you don't..debate over. The end.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

OK, I'll play. What makes you say that?

 

Because of the name of the thread.

[mipafox 438]

Spousal Usage in a SD/HD Situation

 

I thought this was going to be about tripping your spouse or using them as a shield.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

 

 

I thought this was going to be about tripping your spouse or using them as a shield.

 

Nice one!

[yazamitaz 0]

I thought this was going to be about tripping your spouse or using them as a shield.

 

CLASSIC !!!!!!

[Jon 264]

I thought this was going to be about tripping your spouse or using them as a shield.

 

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

This brilliant idea would settle that discussion once and for all:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Biden-technology-guns-owners/2013/01/11/id/471059?s=al&promo_code=11EC2-1

[Bt Doctur 188]

But if your the only one at a(insert this item campground) and this violence were to take place as typed then your homefree.

You DO NOT CALL POLICE

Get your trusty camp shovel and just dig a pit.Maybe a deep latrine pit.

Enjoy the rest of the camping trip.