Lawn darts. The sharp-pointed kind.
Lawn darts were banned because several children were killed and injured with them. But anyone – even a crazy person – can buy a gun, or 50 of them. According to a CDC study I saw some time ago, more children are killed by guns in the US than in the combined total of all the other first-world countries they studied.
I’m not sure what you mean by “ATF gives up it’s legal theory of constructive possession”.
I don’t think I’d make this trade.
Well, aren’t short-barreled rifles “carbines”? Historically, for use by mounted soldiers, a kind of hybrid of infantry and cavalry? And who does’t crave an opportunity to hunt deer from horseback?
I don’t understand. Are you saying that this proposed SlideFire ban is so overwhelmingly likely to pass that the gun controllers don’t need to compromise and throw the RKBA crowd a bone to get them on board? :dubious:
The scenario I was thinking of was that someone owns a board, and a pipe, and a few screws, and gets arrested and charged for possessing a machine gun. It’s the same theory that they used to charge this guy with possessing an unregistered SBR:
The difference is, there are plenty of other uses out there for “a board, and a pipe, and a few screws”. I’ve got all that in my basement right now, and I’m one of those unarmed hippie Canuck types.
With the guy you cited, he had gun-related paraphernalia that had no other purpose than to be attached to the gun, to produce something that would be in violation of the law, absent the proper permits. No amount of “nod nod, wink wink” should be allowed to cover up his liability.
Is it too late to jump in with more examples of things that can be trivially made in less than 5 minutes and are illegal?
What other legitimate uses do the stock and/or vertical grip have? And don’t play coy games with “legitimate”. You know what’s meant.
And if someone owns a board and pipe that are cut to specific lengths, with screw holes that attach it to the gun to convert it to bump-stock style, then that would be something that would be chargeable.
Just having board, pipe and screws would not. Just as in your story, if he had a chunk of metal, that would have not gotten him into trouble, but he had chunks of metal that were specifically designed to alter the function of the weapon.
But, please, present this choice to the public. Tell the public that they can ban bump-stocks, if they get rid of the laws that prevent people from easily modifying their guns into full auto. I’m sure they’ll be appreciative of that choice, and side with you in a heartbeat.
There’s no point in horse-trading on some issues.
To use different example, someone else on this board proposed that a bill to formalize the DACA program should be paired with a bill to build Trump’s wall on the border. In yet another example, an episode of the Simpsons had a bill to save Springfield (IIRC) had an amendment to fund the obscene arts attached to it.
Besides, I think we are living in different universes if you are contending that there’s an important gun rights issue out there that the Republican-controlled Congress is simply ignoring, such that it has to catch a ride on a bill coming out of a national tragedy.
I don’t know if Mr. Amador had other guns or not, but in a hypothetical scenario where he also legally owned one or more rifle(s), the VFG and stock could be attached to any of the rifles perfectly legally, but not legally attached to the pistol he was selling. So a “legitimate” use could be to attach them to a rifle.
There are several important gun rights issues that Congress is ignoring.
They can still be attached to the pistol in question.
Constructive possession
So even if the stock and grip can be fitted to other firearms, what matters is they can be fitted to that particular firearm.
By the way, the issue HD is referring to pertains to overturning a court ruling on a case relating to a drug dealer. Basically, police intercepted six large barrels of marijuana just outside of St. Louis. Police allowed the delivery of the barrels to occur, and Douglas Turnbough and his girlfriend took them home. Police raided the home, sized more drugs, and several firearms, including a homemade .25 pistol with no serial numbers that was in the master bedroom.
Among other issues, Turnbough challenged his conviction on possession of the illegal pistol, arguing that the Government never proved that he actually possessed the gun found in the house that he lived in with his girlfriend. Turnbough appears to basically be saying, “Just because you found it in the bedroom that I sleep in, it still isn’t mine, and you should blame my girlfriend and daughter for possessing it.” During the trial, the Government presented its case to the jury that by his living in the house, and coming and going as he pleased, it is reasonable to believe that Turnbough exercised “dominion and control” over the illegal gun.
I take it that HD disagrees, and thinks that there ought to be more evidence that this drug dealer (or others who may find themselves in similar circumstances) had actual physical possession of the illegal weapon before they could be convicted of such crime. HD, feel free to correct me.
It seems to me that such a change could have massive implications for enforcement of many laws, for example, if Joe Blow is pulled over for speeding and a rocket launcher is found in his trunk, should police not be able to charge him with possession if his fingerprints aren’t on the rocket launcher?
Rat bastards! What does the NRA pay them for???
But he wasn’t charged with merely possessing the stock, in conjunction with all his other gun-related items. He got nailed by selling it, solely in conjunction with the pistol variant for which it would have been illegal. There would be little reason for someone to sell, or to buy, such a collection of parts, unless they intended to combine them into the restricted weapon. No amount of, “Now now, don’t you dare do this simple and convenient thing with these parts, because that would be naughty!” on his part can absolve him.
Yes, that’s my point. Used like that, it’s a stupid-ass theory that can get people in trouble for owning stuff with perfectly legal uses. That’s why I’d like to see it go away, and I’d be willing to trade SlideFires for it.
IANAL, but my layman’s understanding is that there are basically two uses for ‘constructive possession’. One is, as you stated, dealing with possession of something. If the police find something illegal in your car, or in your house, they’re able to argue that you possessed it because you possessed the car or the house, even though they don’t have any evidence that you actually held it in your hands or carried it on your person. I don’t really have any objections to that (which is, I think, the answer to your question above).
The other use of ‘constructive possession’ is what running coach pointed out above. You have all the parts to make a machine gun / SBR / AOW. Even though they’re not assembled into that illegal thing, the ATF can charge you with “constructive possession” of it because you have all the parts to make it. When a board and pipe and screws can be turned into a machine gun, then possession of the board and pipe and screws is “constructive possession” of a machine gun. THAT is the legal theory / interpretation that I’d like to see done away with because it leads to stupid results.
The police only became aware of his possession when he tried to sell it, but the illegal act was the possession, not the sale, at least, that’s my understanding.
ETA: not that I think this is the case in Mr. Amador’s situation, but I’ve been party to a number of transactions where unrelated firearm parts / accessories were thrown in to sweeten the deal.
“I’ll sell you this rifle for $400”.
“Meh, it’s only worth $350.”
“What if I throw in this custom leather holster too. Do you own a Glock?”
“Yeah, OK, deal.”
I know, right? I feel like we’re not really getting our money’s worth. 