You couldn't just ignore him and keep walking to your car and drive off? smh.
That's the sort of thing that happens when one has been drinking.
Your wife carrying the firearm in proximity to you where you have access to it is covered by the "about his person" part.
I disagree. Another person in possession of a gun standing next to you does not make you in possession of that gun. It would be a rather absurd reading of the law to attribute the phrase "about his person" to the person of another. In Illinois, the only way that the wife's possession of the gun could be attributed to him for purposes of applying the felon in possession statute is if both were involved in some other crime and the wife was also a felon. That would make him guilty under what the Illinois courts call the accountability theory. Thus, an Illinois appellate court reversed the conviction of a defendant charged with that statute where the facts were that (1) the defendant was a convicted felon at the time the other crime was committed but was not found in possession of a firearm and (2) his two accomplices in that other crime did have possession of firearms but neither of them were convicted felons at the time. The court explains:
In this case, the relevant facts are uncontested. Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon under an accountability theory. At trial, the evidence established that Wilson and Moore possessed weapons during the course of the offenses but that defendant did not. It is also uncontroverted that defendant has a prior felony conviction. However, the State did not present any evidence that Wilson and Moore were convicted felons. Because the relevant facts are uncontested, and the issue raised by defendant is whether these facts are sufficient to establish the elements of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon under an accountability theory, we review de novo defendant's claim of insufficient evidence. Chirchirillo, 393 Ill.App.3d at 921, 332 Ill.Dec. 703, 913 N.E.2d 635.
Under Illinois law, a person is legally accountable for another's criminal conduct when "[e]ither before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense." 720 ILCS 5/5–2(c) (West 2006); see People v. Dennis, 181 Ill.2d 87, 96, 229 Ill.Dec. 552, 692 N.E.2d 325 (1998). In Illinois, in order to prove unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) knowingly possessed a firearm and (2) has been convicted of a felony. 720 ILCS 5/24–1.1(a) (West 2006).
As the latter statute provides, it is the person possessing the weapon who must be a convicted felon. 720 ILCS 5/24–1.1(a) (West 2006); Chirchirillo, 393 Ill.App.3d at 925, 332 Ill.Dec. 703, 913 N.E.2d 635. "A charge based on accountability must necessarily flow from the principal crime at issue." People v. Hicks, 181 Ill.2d 541, 547, 230 Ill.Dec. 244, 693 N.E.2d 373 (1998). Thus, recently, this court held that to support a conviction of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon under an accountability theory, the evidence must establish that the principal who possessed the weapon was a convicted felon. Chirchirillo, 393 Ill.App.3d at 925–26, 332 Ill.Dec. 703, 913 N.E.2d 635.
In this case, no evidence was presented to establish that either Wilson or Moore (as principals) was a convicted felon. Therefore, the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon under an accountability theory. Accordingly, defendant's conviction of this offense is reversed and his sentence vacated.
People v. Gibson, 403 Ill. App. 3d 942, 949–50, 934 N.E.2d 611, 617–18 (2010), abrogated by People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459, 4 N.E.3d 474. The case was abrogated on grounds other than the court's ruling on the felon in possession charge.
Thus, the wife's possession of the gun at the time of the stop cannot be attributed to the OP unless the state can prove the accountability theory. As the wife is apparently not also charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, I assume she is not a convicted felon and therefore the accountability theory would fail.
That's not the end of it, though. The problem for the OP is that there is a witness saying that the OP had a gun and yet when the OP and his wife were stopped, there was a gun found, only in the possession of his wife. It's not hard to figure out the state's theory from there: the state will argue that if the witness is correct and the OP had a gun when the fight broke out but didn't have it at the time of the stop then he must have given the gun he had to his wife prior to the stop knowing that when stopped if he had the gun he'd be in trouble for being a felon in possession.
The OP very definitely needs a criminal defense lawyer for this. 
