It's about access, not ownership.
Under federal law a person who was convicted of a felony is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition.
"Possession" is a good, English word, and
its normal meaning is:
1 a : the act of having or taking into control...
So possession is in a sense broader than ownership. One may have possession of something without being the owner. And one may own something without having [at the time] possession of it.
Also, unless a word is specifically defined in a statute it will be read and applied by a court according to its ordinary meanings. See
Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42:
...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...
So, for example, I have possession of the things here on my desk near me not because I own them (which in this case I do), but because they are under my control. I can pick up a pen here and use it. I can hand this stapler to my wife, who just entered my study so she can use it (or I can physically prevent the neighbor kid, who has no business being here anyway, from picking up my letter opener.) And if something on my desk has been loaned to me, so I don't own it, it's still here and I can handle and use it.
The courts have applied the same reasoning to prohibited-persons-in-possession-of-a-gun cases:
- See U.S. v. Barron-Rivera, 922 F.2d 549 (C.A.9 (Wash.), 1991) in which Barron-Rivera's conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm was affirmed without him even having had to touch a gun. Barron-Rivera's claimed reversible error in that the government failed to prove the necessary intent.
The court of appeal noted, at 551:
...Barron-Rivera argued that the gun was in his wife's residence at the time he re-entered the United States and moved back into that residence. Accepting that contention, the district court, nonetheless, found that Barron-Rivera's possession of the firearm was voluntary because he permitted the firearm to remain in the house after he acquired knowledge of its presence....
In affirming the conviction, the court of appeal found, at 551 -- 552:
...In other words, by continuing to reside in the apartment in which the gun was located, he voluntarily and knowingly possessed the gun...
- See, also, United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), in which the gun a prohibited person was charged with illegally possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):
...on June 6, 2008, a valid search warrant (the “search warrant”) was executed on the couple‟s Clarion County home. Agents seized an SKS, Interordnance M59/66 rifle (“SKS rifle”) from an upstairs bedroom.
Although Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. After being informed of the raid, Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet‟s assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall‟s possession....
Bottom line, guns need to be stored in a manner which reasonably assures that the felon can't get his hands on one -- e. g., in a locked safe to which he doesn't have the combination or can't get the key.
