Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bandaid1
...Whoever I remember a courageous 15 y/o boy that used his fathers AR15 to shoot a robber in Texas defending his 12 y/o sister. Isn't it illegal for a 12y/o and/or a 15 y/o to have access to (posses) a firearm without the parent/adult present under federal law?...
|
That's not exactly right. There can be criminal liability under federal (or the laws of some States) if a person leaves a loaded gun unsecured, a minor gets access and hurts someone. But justified use of force in self defense would be a good defense to any such charge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bandaid1
...If the wife in Cali is legal to own and posses the firearm, it seems that requiring her to lock it up when her husband(a person not allowed to own/posses/have access to a firearm) is home, would violate her right to have the firearm for self defense...
|
Nonetheless, under current federal law (and the laws of many States) it would be a crime to aid and abet a prohibited person have possession of a gun.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bandaid1
...I don't see how they can confiscate anything without a warrent.
|
Then you don't understand search and seizure law. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. There are many circumstances under which the courts have sustained the seizure of evidence or contraband without a warrant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bandaid1
...I fail to see why she would be required to forfiet her rights when she has not broken any laws....
|
Among other things, if someone has aided and abetted a prohibited person to have possession of a gun, he has violated the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bandaid1
...Felons aren't require to have a background check before they handle a firearm in a gun store. Isn't a FFL violating the same law should that happen?
|
First, the felon himself is violating the law. Second the FFL is violating the law if he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the person he's showing the gun to is a prohibited person.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bandaid1
...So she knew he was a convict, knew he could not have access...
|
Knowing or having reasonable cause to believe is an element. Of course in the situation described in the OP it appears likely that the husband knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his wife could not possess a firearm.
In such circumstance it would appear that the police would be able to articulate probable cause to seize the guns. It might work out that the case against the husband will ultimately fail, and the husband might have a chance to get his guns back (if he can keep them secure). But the first step in the process would be for the authorities to take custody of the guns pending going through the legal process.