Straw Purchase?

[6.5x55swedish]

Navy: I have to disagree with your interpretation due to the dictionaries definition:

Definition of POSSESSION

1
a : the act of having or taking into control
something owned, occupied, or controlled : property........

If we went with your scenario for the sake of the argument: There would be no reason for the neighbor to refuse a FFL transaction if he indeed is legal to "possess" and sell the gun in question.

 

[CoRoMo]

Well...

By that definition, I am in possession of something that I simply own but lack access to.

That would put all gun owners in violation of federal law when they set foot on Post Office property -even when they aren't in the vicinity of any of their owned guns- since it is illegal to be on PO property while in possession of a firearm.. and since, to you, possession can mean mere current/active ownership.

 

[6.5x55swedish]

The term "possession" was used because if "own" was used any felon could simply barrow a gun to get around the law.

A simple google search of "felon gun ownership" will verify that by "possession", ownership is included.

And on the post office thing: The law states ossession in a Federal building. You can posses sit in your car (if that is legal) or in your home, just not in a Federal Building.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/930

 

[CoRoMo]

The term "possession" was used because if "own" was used any felon could simply barrow a gun to get around the law.

The word 'possess' is used because that's the act which is prohibited, rather than ownership. You're trying to add ownership to the act of possession but there does not exist a statute that you can paste here that would show this to be true.

And on the post office thing: The law states ossession in a Federal building.

Don't confuse Post property with Federal property. They are not the same. For one, the prohibition of firearms in federal facilities [18 USC 930] requires substantive postings at all entrances for purposes of prosecution, while the prohibition of firearms in postal facilities [39 CFR 232.1] does not.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/930

Note that this link contains no information about Postal property, only Federal.

Drift apologies all around.

 

[anchorman]

If someone is intent on a FTF sale and is not willing to go through an FFL, I might be inclined to shy away from buying.

I have bought and sold face to face and don't have a problem with it, but if the other party told me in advance they would not use an FFL before the buy or sell occurred, I would have walked on both accounts. Not sure if that's what's happening here.

I think some people put in ads that they will only do FTF is to make it clear to out of state buyers that they don't want to have the hassle of putting things in the mail. I have an FFL who makes this very easy and reasonably priced, so it doesn't stress me much. others may not want to drive an hour and half each way to avail themselves of the services of an FFL.

 

[6.5x55swedish]

See United States V Mitchell 2000.

Mr Mitchel had a previous domestic violence conviction from 1996. In 1998 he was arrested for making threats against his wife. When arrested he did not have a gun on him and was not in his home, but his daughter allowed officers to search their home and a handgun was found in the bedroom. Mitchel was charged with Unlawful Possession of a firearm... 5 appeals and the conviction was affirmed.

Why do I suddenly have the feeling there are a bunch of felons with guns on this site?

 

[Bobson]

I was thinking about this recently too. I live in Phoenix but have been visiting family in Texas for the past week. I've found a couple rifles at small co-op type stores that sell hay and other feed primarily, that I haven't seen anywhere back home. Pretty lame that I legally have no way to buy any of these, despite the fact that if I found em back in AZ, I'd be good to go. If the background check was limited to factors only within a state, it would make sense. Instead, it seems completely arbitrary.

Deleted - this was addressed earlier in this thread.

 

[Sam1911]

I've found a couple rifles at small co-op type stores that sell hay and other feed primarily, that I haven't seen anywhere back home. Pretty lame that I legally have no way to buy any of these, despite the fact that if I found em back in AZ, I'd be good to go. If the background check was limited to factors only within a state, it would make sense. Instead, it seems completely arbitrary.

OH>>>WHAT?

You CAN buy RIFLES out of state. Perfectly legal unless one of the two states prohibits it (and TX and AZ are not such states). It's just handguns that have to be shipped to an FFL back home.

Go get your rifles, dude.

 

[Bobson]

..wow, I never knew that. I thought it was all guns. You learn something new every day lol.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I thought it was all guns....

It is all guns. It's just that long guns can be transferred by any FFL, as long as the long gun is legal in the transferee's State of residence and the transfer takes place in a manner that conforms to the laws of both the State in which the transferee resides and the State in which the transfer takes place.

A handgun, on the other hand, must be transferred by an FFL in the transferee's State of residence.

 

[Bobson]

Thanks for the clarification, Frank.

 

[NavyLCDR]

See United States V Mitchell 2000.

Mr Mitchel had a previous domestic violence conviction from 1996. In 1998 he was arrested for making threats against his wife. When arrested he did not have a gun on him and was not in his home, but his daughter allowed officers to search their home and a handgun was found in the bedroom. Mitchel was charged with Unlawful Possession of a firearm... 5 appeals and the conviction was affirmed.

Why do I suddenly have the feeling there are a bunch of felons with guns on this site?

The reason Mr. Mitchel was charged with possession of a firearm was because it was in his bedroom! HELLLLOOOOOO! Constructive Possession means that you know where the object is, and you have the means to access it.

1. I own a firearm. It is in my bedroom dresser drawer. No lock between the gun and I that I can't just legally open myself. I know where the gun is, I own the gun, and I can access the gun - all three of those = possession.

2. I own a firearm. It is in my neighbor's safe that I do not have access to OR my neighbor has the gun at a location where I don't know where it is. I am NOT in possession of the gun that I own because I cannot access it because it is either behind a lock that I do not have a key or combination to or because it is in a location hidden from me.

It is perfectly legal for a felon to OWN a firearm so long as it is either locked up where they cannot gain access to it, or if someone has it in a location hidden from them.

You can continue to believe whatever you want to, but you really should study the LEGAL definition of possession, including constructive possession.

 

[I6turbo]

I agree... If the seller will only do FTF walk away... There is no reason for the seller to not be willing to go through an ffl unless something about the deal is already not legal... Like the seller being a felon.

I don't know.... I can fully understand where a perfectly honest and law abiding person (but one who doesn't particularly trust the gubermint these days) would be unwilling to involve a FFL. I think there are plenty of people who have guns that aren't on any fed book because they bought them years ago and/or they bought them FTF. They don't want to get on the fed's list just for a sale that they could just as easily conduct with some person who doesn't insist that they sign the fed's list.

 

[bikemutt]

Geez, if a buyer really insists on being background checked for a private sale, have at it. Buy the gun from Mr. FTF, drive to a dealer, hand him the gun and pay him to transfer it to you. Why on earth a buyer would insist on that is beyond me.

 

[brickeyee]

Navy: I have to disagree with your interpretation due to the dictionaries definition:

Definition of POSSESSION

1
a : the act of having or taking into control
something owned, occupied, or controlled : property........

Word in the law have their ordnary meaning, unless the law defines them in another way.

The '35 NFA defines 'firearms' as machine guns (more than one shot per operation of the trigger).
The definition applies ONLY to that portion of the law.

Many words have multiple meanings, and it is NOT uncommon for a law to carefully call out WHAT meaning they are using FOR THAT LAW.