There is a slight possibility they may have had a tech agent come in to present the details of how those parts were cobbled into an illegal SBR, but you're right, this case is very routine and mundane.Originally Posted by Mitchell, Esq.
There is a slight possibility they may have had a tech agent come in to present the details of how those parts were cobbled into an illegal SBR, but you're right, this case is very routine and mundane.
Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)
Suppose his lawyer said "We should take this plea," and the client said "Naw, I know my rights! I want a trial! Puff Daddy had a trial!"?
(nb. I am not a lawyer. But I listen sympathetically as one beats his forehead against his desk occasionally.)
Last edited by Tamara; 06-02-2016 at 05:18 PM.
I'm the chauffeur, not the guy deciding where to go.
When it come to doing what a client says...I only work here.
I've been having a lot of trouble trouble following this narrative. First it seemed that someone else reported him for brandishing a handgun during a road rage incident which led to the police looking for him.
Now we are hearing that the defendant himself contacted the police on the advice of a friend because he gave another driver the finger.
Well, it's a safe bet that the guy will not be discovering a cure for cancer anytime soon.
Then you cite this:Originally Posted by John HearneOriginally Posted by joshs
There is case law calling an unassembled short upper and lower "constructive possession" of an SBR.
Really? What case is that? If it exists, it directly contradicts SCOTUS case law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Center_Arms_Co.
The term "constructive possession" is not used at all in that 11th Circuit Decision.United States v. Kent, 175 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 1999).
Here is a link to the text of the decision: http://openjurist.org/175/f3d/870/united-states-v-kent
Feel free to read the decision, and then tell me where you see the Court "calling an unassembled short upper and lower "constructive possession" of an SBR" (sic)
Once again:
". . . constructive possession . . . "
Actually, I know it does not mean what you think and claim it means.
Last edited by DMF13; 06-02-2016 at 11:47 PM. Reason: Corrected a typo
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
There is physical (aka "actual" possession), for example when you have an item in your hands. Then there is "constructive possession" when you don't physically possess the item, but have the power and intent to exercise dominion and control over the item, even though you don't have physical possession of the item. For example if you put an item in the trunk of your car, and then walk away, you no longer physically possess it, but it's still yours, and you have the power and intent to exercise dominion and control over the item, so you are then in constructive possession of that item.
Also, Black's Law Dictionary defines "constructive possession" as, "A person has constructive possession of property if he has power to control and intent to control such an item." Com. v. Stephens, 231 Pa.Super.481, 331 A.2d 719, 723. "Being in a position to exercise control over a thing." US v. DiNovo, C.A.Ind., 523 F.2d 197, 201.
Doesn't have anything to do with the ability to "construct" an item, but rather the manner in which you possess an item.
ETA: That's not a stupid question at all.
Last edited by DMF13; 06-02-2016 at 11:50 PM.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
No different than any other item.
If the government wants to get a conviction for possession of any contraband item, they must be able to prove the person either had physical or constructive possession of the item.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
This is different from the way we have been using it in the context of various NFA items for longer than many of our forum members have been alive, so was ATF wrong, or were we? Or did the definition change?
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
I sympathize, because so many people (and I don't mean just in this thread and this forum) have misused the term "constructive possession" when discussing NFA firearms, and have further improperly described the relevant caselaw on NFA firearms, that it can be confusing.I'm perhaps more confused than ever.
The citation provided by joshs, is actually a good, albeit lengthy, discussion of the topic. You can read it at the link I provided. Possession (constructive or physical) was NOT disputed by Kent. Kent disputed whether the evidence actually proved that what he admits to possessing was a "short-barreled rifle" as defined in the US Code.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
Anyone using "constructive possession" to mean the ability to construct an item, rather than the power to control and intent to control an item (or alternatively the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others), is using the term incorrectly. It has a specific legal meaning, and as I said in my previous post, unfortunately many people (and again I don't mean just in this thread and this forum) have misused the term "constructive possession" when discussing NFA firearms, and have further improperly described the relevant caselaw on NFA firearms, to the point where many people have come to misunderstand the meaning of the term . . . and yes that is true regardless of how long the term has been misused, and the proper legal meaning has not changed.
Last edited by DMF13; 06-03-2016 at 01:22 AM.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
Reply With Quote
