Texas court rejects rules regarding unfinished frames & receivers

[44 AMP]

more than a bit of a double standard, wouldn't you say?

 

[JohnKSa]

Are you saying that I should lie about it to make it sound worse than it is if I don't agree with it?

To my mind this is in the same fantasy (and its the law in some places) where, if you, the ammunition and the firearm are in the same compartment of a vehicle, the gun is considered "loaded".

If the law defines "loaded" in that way, then that's what the law says and that's how it will be enforced unless it is challenged and struck down. That's not a fantasy, that's just the reality of how the law works. They aren't saying that the gun is 'loaded' in the sense of the common definition of 'loaded', they are merely defining a particular legal offense in a particular way using legal terms that have been given a special legal definition.

You don't have to accept the legal definition as the new common definition, but you do need to understand how the law defines it if you want to avoid committing the defined offense.

Legal definitions are sometimes different from common definitions and when there's a difference, then the legal definition is what needs to be considered from a legal standpoint.

Constructive possession is an offense defined in a particular way. You can disagree with the premise of constructive possession (I do) but disagreement doesn't change how it is defined or how it is enforced. If you want to avoid committing the offense, then whether you agree with the premise of the law or not, it's important to understand how the offense is defined. It doesn't help anyone or change anything to make up other definitions or give incorrect examples that cloud the issue.

 

[Metal god]

Yeah , I believe the 9 circuit defined an unloaded firearm with ammo near by as a fully functioning firearm and believe it is still good precedent . You know like a car with all its tires removed is a fully functioning vehicle or maybe better said with no gas It was in relation to CA now banned open carry but unloaded rule where you could carry a firearm but only openly and unloaded .

The state thought that would allow them to ban conceal carry and nobody would want to open carry unloaded. Haha wrong , people started open carrying and the ultra anti’s freaked out seeing guns on hips at the stores etc . That ordinance didn’t last very long.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If we are talking about constructive possession, that's not about getting caught with the system actually assembled and functioning as an illegal firearm. That would be a clear violation, not constructive possession.

For it to be constructive possession, there would have to be a combination of parts (not already assembled) that could not be used in any other way other than to assemble an illegal firearm.

If the "shoelace" were found, already configured so that there was no other reasonable use than to convert a firearm to full auto, in the possession of a person who also had a firearm that it would fit, that would be constructive possession.

But that is hardly the same thing as just happening to own a shoelace. There are clearly many other legal uses for shoelaces. To lace up shoes, for example.

So no, just "happening to own" a shoelace and a semi-automatic rifle is not constructive possession.

That's the way it should be -- if you're going to allow "constructive possession" at all -- but history tells us that's not how the BATFE operates.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/when-a-shoe-string-is-a-machine-gun/

(Former ATF official Robert E. Sanders) noted that ATF once issued a letter ruling saying a 14-inch shoestring was a machine gun because it could be used to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. The letter was later rescinded.

 

[44 AMP]

Clarification on my use of "fantasy".

The law can define a fish as a bumblebee, and use that definition in enforcing the law. That is not a fantasy. The law actually does it, so it is a real thing.
And, stupidly written or not, if it is the law, we obey or face the consequences.
Until it is not the law, anymore.

Believing that a fish actually is a bumblebee, is fantasy. Understanding that the law says a fish is a bumblebee is not fantasy, it is a sad reality.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yeah , I believe the 9 circuit defined an unloaded firearm with ammo near by as a fully functioning firearm and believe it is still good precedent .

You don't have to agree with a ruling to understand it, and understanding it is what's important when discussing the law. That's how you avoid getting into trouble.

Legal definitions are what they are. Until they get struck down, you just live with them.

Haha wrong , people started open carrying and the ultra anti’s freaked out seeing guns on hips at the stores etc . That ordinance didn’t last very long.

Yeah, then they just banned open carry altogether. Big win for us!

(Former ATF official Robert E. Sanders) noted that ATF once issued a letter ruling saying a 14-inch shoestring was a machine gun because it could be used to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. The letter was later rescinded.

As it should have been.

Understanding that the law says a fish is a bumblebee is not fantasy, it is a sad reality.

Pretty much. The law can be confusing, use non-standard terminology, and be counter-intuitive. IMO, one of the biggest mistakes the founding fathers made was to allow lawyers/legally educated persons to be involved in the legislative process. The result is that the laws are mostly made by and for lawyers.

 

[44 AMP]

one of the biggest mistakes the founding fathers made was to allow lawyers/legally educated persons to be involved in the legislative process.

I would refine that a bit further, I think the big mistake was allowing the people making the law to redefine terminology and language usage.

There should never be a case where the law says "for the purposes of the law, a fish is a bumblebee. I consider that bad law. The law can, and should say a fish is a fish and a bumblebee is a bumblebee, and address both or either for what they actually are.

but, that's just me....

 

[armoredman]

Red Queen time - believe 5 impossible things before breakfast.
However, I was wondering, can this ruling be used/expanded, eventually, to perhaps neuter the current constructive possession laws around the country.

 

[JohnKSa]

If there are constructive possession laws that do not involve any items currently defined in U.S. Code to be firearms, then I would think this ruling would apply.

Offhand, I don't know of any laws like that at this time.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Gentlemen --

This is a U.S. DISTRICT court decision. That's the lowest level of federal court. This decision isn't binding anywhere outside of this case. It's not even precedent in the 5th Circuit. It may well be appealed and, if that happens, it could be overturned which would then become binding precedent in the 5th Circuit (but not in the rest of the country).

 

[44 AMP]

Any (and every) Federal court ruling is a form of precedence, in that it is something that will be considered in future rulings. Its not binding (until it is under the court rules) but it is something to be considered.

It can be weighed and found wanting and so overturned or overruled, or it could be found valid and supported.

I think the fact that we have gotten even the lowest level of a Federal court ruling against the ATF's desires to be a positive thing, overall.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm not suggesting that it's not a good thing. But it won't do anyone else any good ... or, at least, very little. Even within the 5th Circuit, it's not binding precedent. Someone else in a similar situation can't cite this case as requiring that their case be decided the same way. They can cite it as "persuasive authority," but the judge in the new case isn't required to follow or even pay any attention to citations of persuasive authority.