Posted on 03/05/2012 4:00:48 AM PST by marktwain
That seems to be the implication of United States v. Stegmeier (D.S.D. Dec. 2, 2011) (now on appeal). Stegmeier let a man named Kelley stay in his RV; Kelley was a fugitive from justice, and there was some evidence Stegmeier knew it. Stegmeier also told Kelley where Stegmeier kept his gun. When Kelley was caught, Stegmeier was prosecuted for various charges, including “dispos[ing]” a gun to “any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe” the person is a felon, under indictment for a felony, or a fugitive from justice. The jury convicted, and the judge concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction:
Stegmeier allowed Kelley to live in his RV …. Stegmeier testified that when he helped move Kelley into the RV he told Kelley, “My Pistol is in the closet.” At the time law enforcement was searching the RV on December 22, 2010, the pistol was not in the closet as Stegmeier had advised them it would be. Agent Legg testified that Stagmeier told him on December 22, 2010, that Kelley must have moved the gun and that they should check under the pillow because that is where Kelley usually kept the gun. The .357 handgun was eventually located in a compartment within arm’s reach of the bed in the RV.
The evidence at trial supports a jury finding that Stegmeier disposed of the gun to Kelley. Stegmeier allowed Kelley the use of his RV and advised him of the location of the gun within the RV. Kelley had the power of disposal of the .357 handgun. There is further evidence that Stegmeier was aware that Kelley would have moved and exercised control over that handgun. There was sufficient evidence to convict Stegmeier of the charges under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)….
Note that the jury wasn’t required to find that Stegmeier knew Kelley was ineligible to possess a gun, only that he had “reasonable cause to believe” this. Likewise, it seemed to be sufficient that Stegmeier informed Kelley of where the gun is — something that might have happened if the gun were visible (e.g., hanging on the wall) or was just casually exposed to Kelley, for instance if Kelley saw Stegmeier handle the gun and return it to its proper place. And while Stegmeier seemed to know that Kelley actually handled the gun, that didn’t seem to be required under the court’s reasoning, and as best I can tell the jury never had to find such knowledge. Finally, while Kelley lived in the RV for months, the same logic would apply to shorter visits as well; § 922(d) has no requirement of long-term access.
So if you have house-guests that you have “reasonable cause to believe” have a felony conviction, or have once been in a mental hospital, or are nonresident aliens (even if legal aliens), and they see where your gun is, you might well be guilty of a federal felony on the theory of this case.
not sure i agree with the premise. first of all you never tell anybody where you keep your guns. second, if you’re gonna let someone stay in a place all by themselves, remove your guns from the area.
telling them ‘the gun is in the closet’ is almost like giving permission to use it. (beer is in the fridge means help yerself)
This would mean that no one (including family members) could EVER possess a firearm IF a spouse, relative, close friend, etc. was a convicted felon and living with them?
Give me a F'n break already.
I had a friend years ago who took in a friend who was on Parole (white colar, non-violent offense) and could not keep firearms in his house while this other person was staying there and on Parole, but I've NEVER heard that once a person has served their sentence there was a prohibition from allowing someone who was a felon from living with you if you owned any weapon?
Someone have the USC Statute on that one???
OK, so now I get it. If you know someone has a felony conviction or a history of mental illness, you can no longer invite them into your home if you have a weapon. While there are aspects of this case that seem to support the decision, I feel the ruling is far too broad. The NRA needs to look into this as it opens the door for further entrapment of honest gun owners.
I do NOT want felons to be in possession of...or even to have *access* to...firearms.Therefore I’m not sure I have a problem with this particular case.
Sane,law abiding adults can absolutely have them...courtesy of the 2nd Amendment.Others....NO!
You are correct, the goal is to have “second hand civil rights revokation”
ala second hand smoke.
Reason #1001 to NEVER EVER talk to the Police.
If he had chosen to exercise his right against self incrimination he would have been advised by his lawyer to NOT make incriminating statements to the Police about how the guy knew where his pistol was, and where he thought he usually kept it.
the man was a known fugitive.
this is insane.
good luck with that.
the police have a license to lie. They will and DO use their uniform to intimidate. Good police are few and far between.
that said, what type of person allows a known fugitive to say in their trailer home?
Flashback 1961. I was in the first grade. If it (’it’ being anything) was hidden, I would find it. My grandfather’s pistol was no exception. I was the “go to” person for my 2 older cousins in these stuations.
“A cowboy gun!!!” Putting on my best Annie Oakley face, I took the gun downstairs. Turning the corner, I aimed. “Stick ‘em up!”
I did not know a room full of adults could freeze on a dime. :) It was not loaded, but only my grandfather knew that.
When you talk to them remember that they can (and do) lie.
If you lie to them that is a crime.
Anything you say to them that is incriminating is allowed. Anything you say to them that is exculpatory they are NOT allowed to testify about - as it is just hearsay.
When the Police ask you to talk to them they are asking you to play a “game” where they get to score, but you don't; and they get to lie and cheat, and you don't.
That being said, this guy was scum and deserved the be prosecuted for harboring a known fugitive. But seeings as how the vast majority will end up pleading guilty anyway - why give statements to the Police that will only end up bringing additional charges - one that you ‘confessed’ to - by inadvertently admitting to the details of the situation that expose you to further criminal liability?
I see no reason to believe that having the gun locked up wouldn’t have been sufficient to prevent this result.
We can’t know because the gun owner was an idiot who essentially let the felon take his gun and keep it under his own pillow.
So then I take it that no felon (legislator, entertainer, rapper, sports star) can have armed security.
So then I take it that no felon (legislator, entertainer, rapper, sports star) can have armed security.
So a guy who writes bad checks (a felony) should lose his right to keep and bear arms for his lifetime??????? Would love to hear you defend that position.
Given the premise of Three Felonies a Day, I do.
It's plain to see that far too many "crimes" are felonies. I have to put it in quotes because there even cases of non-law being prosecuted; namely in New Mexico the State Constitution prohibits any law abridging the right of the "citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense" and, further, says "No county or municipality shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
Yet I see city and county courts with "No Weapons, violators will be prosecuted."
That's an easy one...yup,that's *exactly* what I'm saying.And I also don't want such an individual *voting* either...ever again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.