Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Has "constructive intent" ever been challenged in court?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Sambo82, Apr 22, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    Specifically, in front of the Supreme Court? I have read that people have unintentially run a foul of the law because of this and similar regulations by the ATF. It seems amazingly arbitrary that folks can be arrested simply because they just happen to have the parts to make a regulated weapon. I mean, isn't this the same thing as being given a speeding ticket because you might speed, or because there is no apparent reason why you should have a car capable of doing 100 m.p.h.?

    I've searched the topic, but I havn't found a mention of a case in which "constructive intent" was challenged.
     
  2. vaeevictiss

    vaeevictiss Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    That is a pretty good question, although speeding won't put you in the pen for ten. The felony also generates a <deleted> load more money for the govt.

    I guess it comes down to risk. Most people speed because...oh well a ticket and fine. The punishment for an unregistered nfa item is far worse.

    So while you may not find a case on it, I'm not gonna test it haha.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2012
  3. Tipro

    Tipro Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    NC
    If you could cite the law in question it would be helpful in answering. However, the law most likely does not require any showing of intent, just that the circumstances existed (i.e. strict liability for possession of a regulated weapon).

    It's like involuntary manslaughter. You didn't mean to kill someone, but ya did...
     
  4. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,176
    Location:
    Virginia
    There's no such thing as "constructive intent." I think you have it confused with "constructive possession." If you have all the parts to make a machine gun, you have a machine gun -- intent has nothing to do with it.
     
  5. henschman

    henschman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    No, it's never been tested by the Supreme Court. It is an extra requirement that the ATF made up, and which they treat as if it is the law.
     
  6. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,469
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    Its never been tested because it doesnt exist.....read the post above yours.;)
     
  7. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    I believe the OP has constructive possession confused with constructive "intent". Its just semantics but we all knew what he meant :rolleyes:
     
  8. Tipro

    Tipro Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    NC
    DO NOT CONSTRUE THIS AS LEGAL ADVICE, I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT A SANCTION FOR YOUR ACTIVITIES. RELY ON THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

    Well, it looks like I, and I think everyone else, was wrong. I quote below a small part of a semi-lengthy opinion by the Supreme Court in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), in which the government found that there must be a showing of mens rea by the defendant to be convicted of possession of an unregistered automatic weapon. "Mens rea" is the mental aspect of the crime, and requires that the defendant be mentally guilty of committing the crime (for example, if you ask me to go get your sweater off a bench, and I walk over and pick it up, I have not committed larceny if it turns out the sweater is not yours, but belongs to someone else. I did not intend to deprive the owner of that sweater of their rightful belonging, and I therefore cannot be convicted. You, however, can).

     
  9. FuzzyBunny

    FuzzyBunny Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Texas
    Constructive Possession.....hmmmm
    Does that mean we will have some attempted prostitution filling the courts?

    I remember getting pulled over as a kid of 16 or so and had a tool box on the back floorboard. Cops really did not like my attitude. Said he could run me in for having burglary tools and driving around at night.

    You may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride! They can arrest you for anything. Many of the ATF regs are posted with a discussion period then go into the Fed Register and become like a law after 30 days.

    It is my understanding (and may be wrong) Congress can put a stop to anything going into the register through some simple process, even executive orders but they don't.

    If you have reloading powder and PVC sewer pipe in your home, is that bomb making supplies?

    Every year Congress meets, every year tons of fed regs are put out by government departments. They all write things that turns into laws.

    My real question is, when will we got to the point it is all unworkable? Or are we there already?
     
  10. henschman

    henschman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    To be clear, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, as it applies to the ownership of all the parts necessary to put together something illegal, has never been tested in an appellate court and is something the ATF treats as if it is law.

    However, it HAS been pretty well settled that constructive possession can apply to people who have the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over something. It usually pops up in drug cases, but can apply to any other victimless crime in which the mere possession of something is against the law. The way that would work is if you had an unregistered select fire sitting in your closet, your wife and kid could be charged with constructive possession if the gov't shows they had power and intent to exercise dominion and control over it. But if it is in your safe and only you know the combo, only you could be charged. But I have never seen a case reported in which someone's conviction was affirmed under the constructive possession doctrine for merely having some parts that, if put together in some certain way, would be an illegal object.

    Hopefully we will get a test case of this type before too long and put the ATF in their place, so they will cut all this BS out. Give them the Staples treatment.
     
  11. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    Thanks for the replies everyone, especially Tipro. That was very informative and exactly the information I was looking for.

    So no one has been convicted of possessing say an AR 15 and M16 parts? Does that include SBR's? For example has anyone been convicted for being in possession of an AR pistol upper and an unregistered lower at the same time? I guess this question has opened a box of others for me. I'm trying to understand these laws better because like everyone else I don't want to run afoul of them some day. It seems the more I try to figure them out, the more confused I get. There's ALOT of talk on forums that if you happen to own a pistol AR, and a rifle stock, the BATFE will come and haul you away. I was wondering if anyone had any case knowledge of such a thing happening. Thanks again Tipro for the case cite.

    One last question. Am I right to say that Heller affirmed the 2A as an individual right, but that it may be subject to reasonable limitations? If so, do you think that people now stand a better chance to defeat these obviously unreasonable restrictions in the courts?
     
  12. Tipro

    Tipro Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    NC
    Unfortunately I must say this again
    I AM NOT A LAWYER, DO NOT CONSTRUE THIS AS LEGAL ADVICE. THIS IS NOT A SANCTION FOR YOUR ACTIVITIES. RELY ON THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

    Here is a case rather on point that may answer your questions. You must read the case yourself however, and take from it what you will. Keep in mind the following:
    (1) This is a plurality opinion. The rule of law to be taken from this opinion is the narrowest point on which the plurality and concurring opinions agree.
    (2) I make no claims as to the continuing validity of this case. I have not searched for a more recent opinion on point, nor do I know whether the statute in question has been amended.

    United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992).

    I have provided a synopsis of the facts. Entire opinion available here http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/case.html

     
  13. paul

    paul Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    208
    Location:
    SE Texas
    Does "constructive possession" have anything to do with construction..?

    I was lead to believe that it meant that you are in possession of something not in your possession...

    Kinda like having a gun in your car, and being elswhere, you're still in "constructive possession".

    Correct me if I'm incorrect, please.

    p
     
  14. Tipro

    Tipro Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    NC
    Once again...
    I AM NOT A LAWYER, THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. DO NOT USE THIS AS A SANCTION FOR YOUR ACTIVITIES. RELY ON THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL. I MAKE NO CLAIMS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THESE STATEMENTS OF LAW AND FACT, AND THEY MAY NOT APPLY OR BE OUT OF DATE.

    You're correct - constructive possession is possession that is not actual possession. For example, the difference between "I have a gun in my hand," actual possession, and "I have a gun in my car," constructive possession. Constructive possession is very fact specific, and you should always use caution, be aware of the pertinent firearms laws, the judicial interpretations in your own district, and, when in doubt, consult a qualified attorney (i.e. not me).

    Here's some statements of law taken from relevant 11th circuit cases (Alabama, Georgia, Florida). I must stress that these may not be current, and may not apply to your district, and may not apply to your personal situation.

    To prove constructive possession, “the government must show that the defendant exercised ownership, dominion, or control over the firearm or the [premises where] the firearm” was located. United States v. Gunn, 369 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2004). In addition, “ownership is not a requirement for possession. Possession may…joint or sole.” United States v. Boffil-Rivera, 607 F.3d 736, 740 (11th Cir. 2010). “In essence, constructive possession is the ability to reduce an object to actual possession.” United States v. Gavin, 394 Fed.Appx. 643, 645 (11th Cir. 2010). (citing United States v. Martinez, 588 F.2d 495, 498 (5th Cir.1979)). Evidence of defendant’s knowledge of the firearm can be evidence demonstrating constructive possession, although knowledge alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. United States v. Thompson, 473 F.3d 1137, 1142 (11th Cir. 2006). If the government presents legally sufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive possession, the issue should be presented to a jury or other trier of fact. Gavin, 394 Fed.Appx. 646.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page