Stupid question about what taking possession means

Ed Ames · Jun 3, 2020

dogtown tom said:
Again, as I wrote in post#18 .........That's for a judge/jury to determine. My ATF IOI says "generally eyesight distance" because there is no regulation or law that defines an exact distance.

So being aware of case law on the matter would be relevant.

I didn't angrily attack anything or any one.

Interesting. How would you characterize it?

Are you referring to my first response to one of your posts?

This sequence:

dogtown tom said:
"Possession" can mean different things.
Possession in regards to a firearm transfer differs from possession of a firearm by a felon. There have been successful prosecutions of felons who merely held a firearm at a gun show.

Ed Ames said:
Yeah and that’s where a lot of the ambiguity (real or perceived) comes from. Which standard applies here? Without some case law or other clear indication, it’s hard to say.

dogtown tom said:
There are literally thousands of cases involving "possession"....but you'll need to Google them yourself. Be it drugs, firearms, stolen property, counterfeit currency, etc you'll have absolutely no trouble finding a case where merely holding the item resulted in a conviction. Even being inside a vehicle with the item constitutes possession...just watch any episode of Live PD.

Regarding the transfer of possession of a firearm, ATF has these things called regulations. They clearly spell out what is required to transfer lawful possession of a firearm.

Clear snark (“Things called regulation”), clear aggression, an angry tone, with someone who wasn’t arguing with you.

My response: "Possession" can mean different things.
Possession in regards to a firearm transfer differs from possession of a firearm by a felon. There have been successful prosecutions of felons who merely held a firearm at a gun show.

Which, again, has absolutely zero bearing on what was being talked about.

Again, for like the 87th time.....my posts in this thread are regarding the thread topic.

What do you believe the thread topic to be? Because the OP clearly said it was regarding dealer ranges allowing use of a silencer on-prem before the stamp arrived, which has nothing to do with felons.

No sir, I've not been condescending or felt the need to belittle you by asking questions about your mental health. I don't need to.
You "genuine concern? Horsehockey.

Lol, you’ve been nothing but condescending, and if you think asking if you are OK is belittling that’s sad.

dogtown tom · Jun 3, 2020

Ed Ames said:
So being aware of case law on the matter would be relevant.

Covered in post#15

Interesting. How would you characterize it?

A response.
If my responses are causing you such emotional distress that you perceive it as an attack, I apologize.

This sequence:
Clear snark (“Things called regulation”), clear aggression, an angry tone, with someone who wasn’t arguing with you.

Oh good grief. "Angry"? :rofl:

Yeah, "things called regulations" was my pathetic attempt at humor to say "do you not know ATF has regulations that define where and how a licensee conducts business?" I mentioned those "things called regulations" because you think there is case law that permitted licensees to allow people to shoot their silencer while awaiting approval. There isn't case law because there isn't a case!

Which, again, has absolutely zero bearing on what was being talked about.

Click to expand...

I disagree. If you don't like my response JUST PUT ME ON IGNORE. That way you don't ever have to worry about how I'm feeling.
But understand the concept of a public forum, you post, and others post. If you disagree then come up with a rebuttal better than "or you are having a hard time - seriously, is everything OK?"

What do you believe the thread topic to be?

Again, as posted previously: Stupid question about what taking possession means

Because the OP clearly said it was regarding dealer ranges allowing use of a silencer on-prem before the stamp arrived, which has nothing to do with felons.

And?
Again, its been answered in post#20:
The point you missed is that the concept of "possession" has several meanings and is applied differently to licensees, buyer/transferees and prohibited persons. You might not like it but that's the way it is. Want an example? Buyer goes for his "conjugal visit" to shoot at his dealers range. His brother, a prohibited person tags along. Although the silencer remains in the dealers lawful possession and lawful transfer of possession does not occur, the brother who is prohibited cannot touch or shoot the silencer. If he does, that's unlawful possession of a firearm. Same as if it was a rental pistol.

Lol, you’ve been nothing but condescending, and if you think asking if you are OK is belittling that’s sad.

Ed Ames · Jun 3, 2020

dogtown tom said:
Covered in post#15

My pointing out why I might be interested in something was covered in a post?

A response.
If my responses are causing you such emotional distress that you perceive it as an attack, I apologize.

Again with the snark. I have done nothing but agree with you while pointing out that you aren’t really addressing the topic at hand, and you get more and more snarky.

Oh good grief. "Angry"?
Yeah, "things called regulations" was my pathetic attempt at humor to say "do you not know ATF has regulations that define where and how a licensee conducts business?" I mentioned those "things called regulations" because you think there is case law that permitted licensees to allow people to shoot their silencer while awaiting approval. There isn't case law because there isn't a case!

I think what now? Where on earth did you get that?
I specifically said I wasn’t aware of any case law that might affect how it can be implemented. How do you get from “I don’t know” to “I think this exists”?

I disagree. If you don't like my response JUST PUT ME ON IGNORE. That way you don't ever have to worry about how I'm feeling.
But understand the concept of a public forum, you post, and others post. If you disagree then come up with a rebuttal better than "or you are having a hard time - seriously, is everything OK?"

What do you think I am rebutting? I don’t have any disagreement with what you are posting, it’s just irrelevant. You could post about how humans walked on the moon and I would respond the same way.

Again, as posted previously: Stupid question about what taking possession means

so you didn’t read past the headline.

And?
Again, its been answered in post#20:
The point you missed is that the concept of "possession" has several meanings and is applied differently to licensees, buyer/transferees and prohibited persons. You might not like it but that's the way it is. Want an example? Buyer goes for his "conjugal visit" to shoot at his dealers range. His brother, a prohibited person tags along. Although the silencer remains in the dealers lawful possession and lawful transfer of possession does not occur, the brother who is prohibited cannot touch or shoot the silencer. If he does, that's unlawful possession of a firearm. Same as if it was a rental pistol.

No, I didn’t miss any of that. I Never raised a question about it, and never said anything to contradict a single bit of it. I have no dislike, of any of it. You are the only one who thinks anything about that is being argued. All I have said, and I’ll say it again, is that it’s irrelevant to the conversation.

dogtown tom · Jun 3, 2020

Sorry, I'm done with you.
My responses are valid for the topic title and the posts I responded to.
Whether the thread drifted in a direction that you dislike is not really my concern.

Hasaf · Jun 4, 2020

. . . guys, guys. . . Peace, And the love of God be on you all. . .

I pretty well have an answer, it is something she can ask at the range without sounding like a complete idiot.

Stupid question about what taking possession means

Ed Ames

Member

dogtown tom

Member

Ed Ames

Member

dogtown tom

Member

Hasaf

Member

Similar threads