Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

[HCM]

If we took what I said as true, how would showing a gun to a visiting relative be considered a transfer? It wouldn't AFAIK, since you're still present and the gun is still in your possession. Same as why renting a gun at a range is not a transfer of possession.

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask with the sentence requesting the line that provides a clear standard on temporary transfers to comply with due process. If you give me a gun and I leave your dwelling/presence with it, I'm now in possession of that gun; a temporary loan is only allowed for sporting purposes per 922(a)(5), I'm not sure what else you're trying to imply or ask. Totally different situation than sitting at your buddies house as he tosses you his new gun to look at.

I agree. Leaving the presence / location of the FFL / owner has been the “bright line” in the past.

[HCM]

I wasn't making some blanket statement about every federal straw purchase case. I was very specific in what I said. Biden has an interest in the case, given his commentary before, and after the verdict. That is what it has to do with it. Do I think it's likely? Not really. And hopefully, cooler heads at DOJ would prevail over "Angry" Joe.

I agree that the average guy probably isn't on their radar. But obviously, political prosecutions are a real thing, since we just witnessed one. And before all this, Rittenhouse was just another midwestern kid, until he wasn't. And that could happen to anyone.

I'm not defending the straw purchase. I'm saying I hope the full weight of the US Government doesn't come crashing down on these two people out of spite.

This is straying into politics, and I don't want to steer the thread off on some tangent, so I don't have anything else to say about it.

The Biden defamation thing would be an argument against prosecution as KR could argue Biden’s comments were so prejudicial as to preclude him from receiving a fair trial.

Plus I think it would backfire badly on Biden both personally, making him appear even more petty and partisan and politically in terms of further dividing Americans.

[joshs]

If we took what I said as true, how would showing a gun to a visiting relative be considered a transfer? It wouldn't AFAIK, since you're still present and the gun is still in your possession. Same as why renting a gun at a range is not a transfer of possession.

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask with the sentence requesting the line that provides a clear standard on temporary transfers to comply with due process. If you give me a gun and I leave your dwelling/presence with it, I'm now in possession of that gun; a temporary loan is only allowed for sporting purposes per 922(a)(5), I'm not sure what else you're trying to imply or ask. Totally different situation than sitting at your buddies house as he tosses you his new gun to look at.

You're drawing a line that isn't in the statute. Why isn't it a transfer when I simply hand it to you? That's certainly enough "possession" for a violation of 922(g). (922(d) clearly requires dispositional transfers). You could argue that we're in joint possession, so no transfer, but the same argument could be made for Dominick Black. If he still exercised some amount of dominion and control, then he was still in constructive possession throughout the night.

What if I housesit for you and you have unsecured firearms that I have knowledge of? Does a violation of 922(a)(5) occur? Assume we're residents of different states obviously.

[TGS]

Plus I think it would backfire badly on Biden both personally, making him appear even more petty and partisan and politically in terms of further dividing Americans.

Not to mention you can't sue POTUS.....so @WDR's idea of Biden pressuring the DOJ to prosecute him in response to KR suing Biden for defamation/libel is a non-starter anyway.

[joshs]

Not to mention you can't sue POTUS.....so @WDR's idea of Biden pressuring the DOJ to prosecute him in response to KR suing Biden for defamation/libel is a non-starter anyway.

Wasn't the statement made when he was a candidate?

[HCM]

His campaign is a legal entity . . .

Question, Since the comments were made by candidate Biden not president Biden, can you not sue POTUS at all or can you only not sue for actions taken while in office under sovereign immunity?

[joshs]

Question, Since the comments were made by candidate Biden not president Biden, can you not sue POTUS at all or can you only not sue for actions taken while in office under sovereign immunity?

Right, I edited my post because I think that's the more important issue. Clinton v. Jones would seem to allow such a suit, but I'm pretty sure that some of the proceedings were stayed for the duration of Clinton's presidency.

[TGS]

You're drawing a line that isn't in the statute. Why isn't it a transfer when I simply hand it to you? That's certainly enough "possession" for a violation of 922(g). (922(d) clearly requires dispositional transfers). You could argue that we're in joint possession, so no transfer, but the same argument could be made for Dominick Black. If he still exercised some amount of dominion and control, then he was still in constructive possession throughout the night.

What if I housesit for you and you have unsecured firearms that I have knowledge of? Does a violation of 922(a)(5) occur? Assume we're residents of different states obviously.

So, I don't think I'm qualified to converse legal theory with you. I'm looking at it from my perspective as a LEO.....and, to reference @HCM's comment about a bright line, let's say for the purposes of example that you're a felon just because it makes it easier to visualize:

Situation A: I find you outside and you have your friend's gun on you; I'm automatically adding the charge.

Situation B: I find you inside your friend's home, and unsecured guns are present; you might be getting the charge based on some specifics that are lacking from this example, but I'm probably calling the AUSA first.

At some point somebody actually has to do something instead of argue legal theory, which is why we have this rules of thumb/"bright line" as HCM put it. You very well might be right and have some compelling argument in theory, but on the street you're getting the gun charge. If you weren't a felon and were just house sitting and guns that belonged to the owner/tenant were in the house, I don't see how that would be considered a transfer of possession under federal law since they're still in the owner's dwelling. Griffin might be a good case to review about that.

[joshs]

So, I don't think I'm qualified to converse legal theory with you. I'm looking at it from my perspective as a LEO.....and, to reference @HCM's comment about a bright line, let's say for the purposes of example that you're a felon just because it makes it easier to visualize:

Situation A: I find you outside and you have your friend's gun on you; I'm automatically adding the charge.

Situation B: I find you inside your friend's home, and unsecured guns are present; you might be getting the charge based on some specifics that are lacking from this example, but I'm probably calling the AUSA first.

At some point somebody actually has to do something instead of argue legal theory, which is why we have this rules of thumb/"bright line" as HCM put it. You very well might be right and have some compelling argument in theory, but on the street you're getting the gun charge. If you weren't a felon and were just house sitting and guns that belonged to the owner/tenant were in the house, I don't see how that would be considered a transfer of possession under federal law since they're still in the owner's dwelling. Griffin might be a good case to review about that.

Both situations A and B have been sustained under 922(g) as far as I know. But, I'm talking about 922(a)(5).

As you point out, you don't think this would be a transfer for nonprohibited persons, which is kind of my point. 922(a)(5) clearly isn't strictly applied according to its text.

Also, Kyle's dad is a resident of Wisconsin. There's certainly an argument that Kyle was a resident of both states under 27 CFR 478.11.

I also just realized that 922(a)(5) does not require that the firearm is "shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." If it were applied to a purely intrastate transfer of a firearm, it could be constitutionally defective under United States v. Lopez.

[TGS]

As you point out, you don't think this would be a transfer for nonprohibited persons, which is kind of my point.

KR wasn't hanging out in his friend's house to pwn n00bz on COD, or dog sitting, or house sitting, or whatever. He was out and about on his own in the streets, not in connection with a sporting purpose.

That's consistent with the "bright line" we're talking about here.