As I mentioned in my Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense article (PDF p. Defendant Hall already had served twenty four (24) months imprisonment in pretrial detention, and actually served more time than was called for under the advisory sentencing guideline range of fifteen (15) to twenty-one (21) months imprisonment…. § 922(g)(1), or its Pennsylvania counterpart, 18 Pa. According to the Rule 16 discovery materials, at no time during the undercover investigation did agents observe either Huet or Hall actually handle the SKS rifle.
57), “[B]ans on felon possession of firearms also affect their law-abiding spouses, girlfriends and boyfriends, and other housemates: Those people might be unable to safely possess guns in their homes because of the possibility that their felon housemate will be seen as ‘constructive[ly] possess[ing]’ the gun, and that they themselves will therefore be seen as criminally aiding this illegal possession.” “There are limits on the constructive possession doctrine [at least in the view of many courts], for instance if the housemate keeps the gun locked in a combination-locked safe. Defendant Huet is 35 years old, has never been convicted of any crime, and is not disabled or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under 18 U. They did not observe Huet handle or otherwise deliver the rifle to Hall or direct him to handle it.
While the affidavit is filled with labels of “assault” rifle and “militia” language, there are no allegations that SKS rifle is a “true” assault weapon (at least for the last 50 to 60 years), or that Huet was personally involved in any militia activities, legal or illegal.
The attempt to “label” Huet should not deter a thorough analysis in this case — is the government, through the framework of “aiding and abetting,” attempting to convert a lawful rifle owner into a criminal?
Cause it’s in my name and he’s got it.” HALL invited [the undercover agent] into his residence, where the [undercover agent] observed an SKS rifle assault in HALL’s computer room.
The government’s theory, disclosed on the record as set forth in defendant Hall’s proceedings, appears to be that defendant Huet passively aided and abetted Hall in his possession of the curio firearm which she owned and kept in their shared residence.
This statement, which the Court accepts as undisputed, does nothing to advance the cause that defendant Huet knew, or had reason to know that defendant Hall was a felon in possession and that her owning a weapon somehow aided or abetted him in his unlawful possession of the SKS rifle. At the time of the offense charged in this case, defendant Huet, who was charged with aiding and abetting, was neither a felon, nor insane.
The Court therefore finds that Count Three (3) of the Indictment against defendant Huet must be dismissed for failure to state an offense under the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U. Rather, Huet allegedly aided and abetted another who was not permitted to lawfully possess a firearm, thus compounding an inchoate offense upon another inchoate offense.
[T]he government cannot successfully establish that Huet “participat[ed] in the venture as something that [she] wished to bring about[“] …
The facts in the Indictment fail to set forth any allegations to support the conclusion that defendant Huet aided and abetted defendant Hall in his unlawful possession of the SKS rifle.