This really can be a grey area. The reason that I say that is that lying under oath involves an intentional misrepresentation. Officers handle so many cases and testify so many times that the court would likely see this as a mistake caused by not remembering the events accurately or confusing it with another case. I find it very unlikely that this would be seen as intentional unless this was a pattern of behavior for the officer, there was a motive and there was some extrinsic evidence showing that he knew he was not telling the truth. This almost never occurs.
No - felon in "possession" doesn't mean he has to be holding the weapon. It is enough taht he has knowledge of the weapon and dominion and control over it at the time. As to the rest of your question, it's too convoluted to make sense.
Mr. Feasel is a former prosecutor in San Mateo County (CA) with over 10 years of criminal law experience. Nothing stated on this site shall in anyway be construed as legal advice, or as creating any attorney/client relationship. If you would like to hire Mr. Feasel to further investigate your situation, feel free to contact him thru this site.