Who are you talking to?
Legally ship a firearm to yourself
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
- Status
No one cares what you "smell". You don't get to decide if a law is constitutional.
- As the Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), at 177 -- 178 (emphasis added):
- However, that doesn't answer who decides whether a law is unconstitutional. And it isn't you. So who does decide? The Founding Fathers in the Constitution assign the authority to decide questions regarding the meaning and application of the Constitution to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Judicial power is: "...the power “of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision.” It is “the right to determine actual controversies arising between diverse litigants, duly instituted in courts...."
Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers, and several had been judges. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers: and of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers. So they understood what the exercise of judicial power entailed and what the deciding of cases involved. And the Court in Marbury expressly stated, at 177: "...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is...."
- Furthermore, it is a general principle in the United States that courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, until unconstitutionality is determined.
- As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
- And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), at 605:
- As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
- So unless a proper court has ruled that a particular law is invalid as unconstitutional, the statute is in full force and effect, and is valid and enforceable. When you get to court, you can make your arguments, but it's up to the court to decide.
I see. Yeah, I think his "thousands" number is probably wildly high. I do know for a fact that it is violated on occasion, having known several people, including two FFL's, who were under the same delusion as Boogaloo Bungalow and thought that there was some sort of exemption for family members.jski; looks like a few posts got in just before mine!
I agree. Unfortunately, our opinions don't matter and don't change the law.
Enlighten me! Are there thousands of prosecutions for this “crime” I’m unaware of?
I have no idea. Just thought it was a little funny for you to say you were unaware of prosecutions for violations of a law you didn't know existed.
Obviously, if you were aware of prosecutions, you'd have been aware of the law and we wouldn't be having this conversation.Yes, indeed I was unaware of this law BUT I suspect if this law were being widely enforced with multiple prosecutions, I would have been aware of it.I have no idea. Just thought it was a little funny for you to say you were unaware of prosecutions for violations of a law you didn't know existed.
Absolutely true.
Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that most of the time, when it is prosecuted, it's an add-on to other charges. Just a guess.
You won't get any argument from me about that. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge.
deadin
Member
What's the old saying? "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Frank has shown you the water, whether or not you partake is up to you.
Just don't cry foul if it doesn't go your way.....
Frank has shown you the water, whether or not you partake is up to you.
Just don't cry foul if it doesn't go your way.....
Can't really know.
Pretty much every written opinion (i. e., a formal statement by a court of appeal (or occasionally by a trial court judge) explaining why and how the court made a particular decision on a question of law in a particular case) is published in searchable databases. But unless there's been such an opinion written, finding information on cases means looking at the records of each court individually (or trying to find the information through possible public sources like the news).
Trial judges don't often publish a written opinion on each question of law upon which they might rule. Appellate courts almost always do, but only a small percentage of cases wind up in a court of appeal.
However, I did do a search of a legal database to which I subscribe and found opinions in 70 cases in which a violation of 18 USC 922(a)(3) or 18 USC 922(a)(5) was involved.
Thank you. And although I appear brusque, that’s just pretty much my nature as a grouchy curmudgeon, I don’t believe you have been dismissive.
I’m sure this has all been something of an unpleasant surprise to you. It seems to be one of the lesser known nasty wrinkles in our assortment of gun laws.
CapnMac
Member
Correct me if I am wrong, but all of this present thread is tied to GCA 68, and the creation of FFL, correct?
Requiring that interstate firearm transfers go through an FFL, as well as a bunch of other stuff, is GCA68. But the federal licensing of gun dealers and manufacturers goes back to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which was repealed when GCA68 was enacted.
It’s pretty simple. He can fly with a gun or follow the federal rules for shipping it. I have flown at least 50 times with a gun in my check-in bag, after declaring a firearm to the agent and never had a problem. Well that’s not totally true. I had a very young ticket agent in Austin Tx let out a blood curdling scream when she saw my handgun case in the bag. I thought her boss was going to take it out and beat her with it. I don't think she lasted in that job for long.
That is only true if the son-in-law may lawfully take possession of the gun while visiting his father-in-law in Florida. And that is only possible if the gun is a rifle or shotgun and is transferred to the son-in-law thorough an FFL.
CapnMac
Member
Thank you.
OK maybe I misunderstood the original subject. If my son were to lend me one of his guns for protection while I was traveling I would have no problem checking in at either airport with the gun properly locked per FHA requirements. There was no need for proof of who the gun belongs to because that’s not checked when flying. That’s not the case in my behalf because the guns I always flew with were guns that I purchased and we’re under my name. I’ve flown all over the continental USA and even into Alaska.
If you and your son are residents of different States, both you and your son risk prosecution for violation of federal law on the interstate transfer of firearms. See post 5.
You might be able to beat the rap if you convince the prosecutor or judge that the loan was for a lawful sporting purpose. I've found no case law on the issue, so it's difficult to predict how well that argument would work. But if it doesn't work, both you and your son might wind up in federal prison and lose your gun rights for the rest of your lives.
That is not the issue. The issue is the transfer of possession (not ownership) of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another. As outlined in post 5, under federal law that must be done through an FFL.
At the risk of sounding impatient, what is so difficult about that?.
What’s difficult, it seems, is that very few people appear to be familiar with these laws. So on first leaning about them the complications loom large. And, of course, in the case of a handgun any transfer (loan, unless clearly within the lawful sporting purpose exception, sale, or gift) must be done through an FFL in the transferee’s State of residence.
- Status
