Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 228

Thread: ATF raids polymer 80.

  1. #131
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Coyotesfan97 View Post
    I used to do a lot of knock and talks looking for permission to search for drugs. When you dropped the warrant bomb you stepped from voluntary to coercion.
    That's something I always addressed with new detectives (our beat officers don't do their own search warrants except for blood draws).

    "I'll just come back with a warrant" is coercion however "I'll seek a warrant, which a judge may or may not grant" is not. At least locally, our prosecutor was fine with that wording and nobody ever took it to a suppression hearing so apparently the defense was as well.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  2. #132
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    It is frustrating to read threads like this, where people use legal terms, like "constructive possession," and "constructive intent," when neither has anything to do with the ability to construct an object,.yet that is how they are being used here. There was even a claim made here that the "Thompson/Center" case (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/) was a "constructive possession" case, when it had nothing to do with the issue of "constructive possession."

    We went over this in painstaking detail in this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....old#post452818

    As for "constructive intent," I don't have my copy of Black's Law Dictionary handy, but I'll try to find it later, and hopefully get a better definition/exolanation, but in the mean time I'll offer this from "find law":

    https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/intent.html

    "constructive intent:
    intent that is inferred to exist (as from willfulness or recklessness) in relation to an act"
    (sic)

    For example, someone sets a fire with the intent to destroy property, and commit insurance fraud, but had no intent to kill anyone, yet someone dies as a result of the fire. Their " actual intent" was to.commit financial fraud, but it can be inferred that the wilfull, and/or reckless, act of setting the fire, had the foreseeable outcome of injuring, or killing someone, even though the person who set the fire may not have had the "actual intent" to kill someone, but had the "constructive intent" to do so. Which would allow for prosecution and conviction for murder.

    So could we please stop using terms, that have actual specific legal definitions, improperly?
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

  3. #133
    Site Supporter NEPAKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    That's happened before if you remember the Olympic Arms, AR ish pistol, 7.62X39 ammo debacle. This will probably lead to legislation that will require a kit gun to be taken to an FFL and you checked to see if you can own it. If such passes, I don't know.
    Kinda sorta but IIRC, Oly only made a handful of prototypes to "poke the bear with a stick" while Polymer80 found a way to turn plastic into gold.
    The oxen are slow but the earth is patient.

  4. #134
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    That's something I always addressed with new detectives (our beat officers don't do their own search warrants except for blood draws).

    "I'll just come back with a warrant" is coercion however "I'll seek a warrant, which a judge may or may not grant" is not. At least locally, our prosecutor was fine with that wording and nobody ever took it to a suppression hearing so apparently the defense was as well.
    Yeah, I always explain to the new guys that if they mention getting a warrant to a suspect they need to be very clear they're only asking a judge for the warrant, and they must explain the judge might not grant it.

    Although, generally I recommend avoiding it altogether, just to save the hassle of a suppression motion/hearing, since the burden is on the government to prove consent was voluntary.
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

  5. #135
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    It is frustrating to read threads like this, where people use legal terms, like "constructive possession," and "constructive intent," when neither has anything to do with the ability to construct an object,.yet that is how they are being used here. There was even a claim made here that the "Thompson/Center" case (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/) was a "constructive possession" case, when it had nothing to do with the issue of "constructive possession."

    We went over this in painstaking detail in this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....old#post452818

    As for "constructive intent," I don't have my copy of Black's Law Dictionary handy, but I'll try to find it later, and hopefully get a better definition/exolanation, but in the mean time I'll offer this from "find law":

    https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/intent.html

    "constructive intent:
    intent that is inferred to exist (as from willfulness or recklessness) in relation to an act"
    (sic)

    For example, someone sets a fire with the intent to destroy property, and commit insurance fraud, but had no intent to kill anyone, yet someone dies as a result of the fire. Their " actual intent" was to.commit financial fraud, but it can be inferred that the wilfull, and/or reckless, act of setting the fire, had the foreseeable outcome of injuring, or killing someone, even though the person who set the fire may not have had the "actual intent" to kill someone, but had the "constructive intent" to do so. Which would allow for prosecution and conviction for murder.

    So could we please stop using terms, that have actual specific legal definitions, improperly?
    Since I was the instigator in the prior thread, I'll give you a hand:

    constructive intent. (1864) A legal principle that actual intent will be presumed when an act leading to the result could have been reasonably expected to cause that result.

    INTENT, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)

    constructive possession. (18c) 1. Control or dominion over a property without actual possession or custody of it. — Also termed effective possession. 2. Civil law. Possession by operation of law of an entirety by virtue of corporeal possession of a part. • When a possessor holds title to a property and physically possesses part of it, the law will deem the possessor to hold constructive possession of the rest of the property described in the title. La. Civ. Code art. 3426. — Also termed possessio fictitia; possession in law. Cf. actual possession.

    POSSESSION, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)

    I know the guy who argued TC pretty well and have heard him use the evil (general gun forum) use of "constructive possession" as well.

  6. #136
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    OKC
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    The reason it took the agent a couple hours was because of a manufacturing defect. Otherwise it would have taken about the same amount of time as the CI.

    The reason that’s important is because they’re trying to prove the “readily be converted” part of the definition of a firearm. The US Attorney’s Office uses me as a Interstate Nexus Expert, and as part of that, I sometimes have to testify about the definition of a firearm...it would be hard for me to say one of those kits doesn’t meet the definition. Of course, unless I’m on the stand, my opinion doesn’t matter, and the ATF’s does.
    What if I have a rifle and a battery powered angle grinder? That rifle is readily converted into a SBR.... I’m only partially being facetious. And no I am not trying to give you a hard time.

  7. #137
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric_L View Post
    What if I have a rifle and a battery powered angle grinder? That rifle is readily converted into a SBR.... I’m only partially being facetious. And no I am not trying to give you a hard time.
    Plausible explanations for having the items is considered and is pretty powerful against constructive intent. There's a ton of plausible reasons to own both of those items without intending to create an SBR, just like you can have a pistol upper on a pistol lower next to a complete AR rifle. You could easily swap the uppers and create an SBR and a...whatever a rifle upper on a pistol lower is. But it's not constructive intent because there is a very plausible explanation for owning it other then creating an SBR...you own a complete AR pistol. The issue is when you own the pistol upper and no way to make a legal pistol, and like I said in a previous post I'm not 100% clear where that line is drawn.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  8. #138
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    Since I was the instigator in the prior thread . . .
    I wouldn't say you were the instigator at all, just the one who wouldn't give up.
    I'll give you a hand:

    constructive intent. (1864) A legal principle that actual intent will be presumed when an act leading to the result could have been reasonably expected to cause that result.

    INTENT, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)[
    Thank you! That will save me the trouble of finding my copy.
    I know the guy who argued TC pretty well and have heard him use the evil (general gun forum) use of "constructive possession" as well.
    When he uses the term that way, he's absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, wrong. Any lawyer, who has ever dealt with topic of "possession," should know that.

    I find it odd that many of the same people who get upset with "incorrect" use of less clearly defined terms like "clip," "assault rifle," "assault weapon," etc, seem to have no problem incorrectly using terms with very clear definitions, such as "constructive possession," and "constructive intent."
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

  9. #139
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric_L View Post
    What if I have a rifle and a battery powered angle grinder? That rifle is readily converted into a SBR.... I’m only partially being facetious. And no I am not trying to give you a hard time.
    It's already legally a "firearm," so the "readily converted" language being discussed here isn't particularly relevant to your example. The definition of SBR does not contain similar language:

    The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.

    18 U.S.C.A. § 921(a)(8).

  10. #140
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric_L View Post
    What if I have a rifle and a battery powered angle grinder? That rifle is readily converted into a SBR.... I’m only partially being facetious. And no I am not trying to give you a hard time.
    I would suggest going to the link for the "Kent" case, in the thread I linked to, and reading the case. One of the key factors the Court used in deciding "Kent," was this:

    "Moreover, Kent has never contended that there was a pistol grip or any other piece that he could use to make a legal weapon from this short-barreled upper receiver unit. Indeed, it would not be possible to combine the short-barreled upper receiver unit with any kind of lower chamber or lower receiver unit, such as a pistol grip, to create a weapon that would not be a "firearm" for purposes of the NFA."
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •