Stupid question about what taking possession means

[Hasaf]

As I wait for my form 1 to be approved, my wife asked me a question. I think the answer is no because it would constitute taking possession. But, the truth is that I don't know.

Suppose that the indoor range also sales silencers, as the range she likes does. If a person were to purchase a silencer, while they are waiting for their approval, can they use that silencer at that range?

My gut answer is, "no." The reason I give is that if you (I) have paid for it, and it is handed to you (her), then you (she) have taken possession. All that paperwork would be in her name, I am just holding the credit card.

She thinks it would be okay. Second off the cuff answer, "call them and ask." But it is late and they are closed, plus, I think she is worried about asking a [stupid] question.

So, yes, can use at the gun-store that is holding it until the stamp comes, or no, that would be taking possession.

Oh, and if the answer is, "yes", please answer using a very small font.

 

[Ed Ames]

Indoor ranges that sell silencers around here often allow that. Their argument is that it’s still in their legal possession the whole time, and equivalent to them letting you handle their inventory before purchase.

Don’t know if the practice has ever been tested in court. It seems as though they might need to be in a position to directly supervise at arms length (like the ranges that rent machine guns) vs whatever normal supervision their range has.

 

[AlexanderA]

As long as the dealer is there while you use the NFA item, it hasn't passed out of his dominion and control and no "transfer" has occurred. It's OK to use the silencer at the dealer's range, with him there, while awaiting ATF approval. It's done all the time. Remember that equitable title and physical possession are two different things. You "own" the item when you have paid for it, but you can't physically "possess" it until the ATF approval comes back. ATF doesn't care who "owns" it -- they only care who "possesses" it.

 

[MCFLYFYTER]

I think of it more as who controls it. I can hand my silencer to a stranger and they have possession. So really possession doesn't mean a lot. As long as I control the silencer, anyone can possess it.

These terms are not correct legally, but it is worded as a typical person would understand.

 

[748]

In that case you are good to warm it up at their range, just make sure you return it to them before you leave.

 

[Havok7416]

My dealer has repeatedly offered to meet me at the range with my future cans. Sadly our schedules do not align, but this is perfectly legal.

 

[BreechFace]

Shooting a paid off "still in ATF jailed" silencer at the shop (with a range) in possession with it has been acceptable and encouraged around here.

 

[dogtown tom]

Oh, and if the answer is, "yes", please answer using a very small font.

Yes
No different than shooting a rental pistol at a gun range.

 

[dogtown tom]

Indoor ranges that sell silencers around here often allow that. Their argument is that it’s still in their legal possession the whole time, and equivalent to them letting you handle their inventory before purchase.

Don’t know if the practice has ever been tested in court. It seems as though they might need to be in a position to directly supervise at arms length (like the ranges that rent machine guns) vs whatever normal supervision their range has.

"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.

 

[dogtown tom]

I think of it more as who controls it. I can hand my silencer to a stranger and they have possession. So really possession doesn't mean a lot. As long as I control the silencer, anyone can possess it.

You might need to rethink more, because virtually everything you wrote is wrong.
While you can certainly hand your silencer to another person, let them pop off a few rounds, no legal transfer of possession has occured under Federal law.
But.......if that stranger is a prohibted person (felon, drug addict, wife beater, illegal alien, etc) then he violates Federal and state laws pertaining to possession of a firearm.
And, just as importanly, if you were aware of this, you violate Federal law as well.

So yeah, "possession" DOES mean a lot.

These terms are not correct legally, but it is worded as a typical person would understand.

 

[Crunchy Frog]

I’ve heard that called a “conjugal visit”.

One dealer told me his store does not allow it, in case the customer is turned down on the tax stamp application or the 4473 on delivery.

 

[dogtown tom]

I’ve heard that called a “conjugal visit”.

One dealer told me his store does not allow it, in case the customer is turned down on the tax stamp application or the 4473 on delivery.

I know a dealer that used to allow customers to shoot their silencer before approval and not pay for anything (silencer or tax stamp) until the Form 4 was returned approved. He quit doing that when a customer experienced a baffle strike that caused significant, irreparable damage.....and the customer refused to pay.

The 4473 that an NFA transferee completes when he comes to pick up his firearm doesn't have a NICS check. ATF did it before approving the Form 4 and affixing the stamp. Sealer merely checks the box on #20 "No NICS check was required because a background check was completed during the NFA approval process..."

 

[Ed Ames]

"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.

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.

 

[MCFLYFYTER]

You might need to rethink more, because virtually everything you wrote is wrong.
While you can certainly hand your silencer to another person, let them pop off a few rounds, no legal transfer of possession has occured under Federal law.
But.......if that stranger is a prohibted person (felon, drug addict, wife beater, illegal alien, etc) then he violates Federal and state laws pertaining to possession of a firearm.
And, just as importanly, if you were aware of this, you violate Federal law as well.

So yeah, "possession" DOES mean a lot.

Think you missed the point, but its cool.

 

[dogtown tom]

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.

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.

 

[Ed Ames]

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.

Yes, but those are, to be blunt, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

We aren’t talking about possession of an item which is prohibited for that person to possess. Of course that’s got case law, a ton of easy to find case law. A person who doesn’t yet have a tax stamp for their suppressor isn’t a prohibited person with regards to suppressors.

Possession can be joint. Everyone within arms reach of a firearm has some form of possession of it. As long as one of the people who has possession is in legal possession, and nobody in possession is in illegal possession, it’s generally considered OK, legally. Otherwise a dealer couldn’t let anyone handle a firearm they hadn’t done paperwork on.

But at what point is the person in legal possession considered no longer present? There is obviously a limit, or a dealer could say, “just tell me the combo of your safe and I’ll ‘store it in your safe’ until the stamp comes back, and you can use it as long as you check in with me each time.”

There may well be case law that gives us an answer there, but it isn’t the stuff you are bringing up.

 

[Buzznrose]

A couple ranges here do this. You cannot take the cam off property. But you pay for it up front as far as I know. I have no idea how theyd deal with damage...

 

[dogtown tom]

Yes, but those are, to be blunt, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I disagree. In a discussion regarding "possession" state and federal laws ARE relevant.

We aren’t talking about whether a possession of an item which is prohibited for that person to possess. Of course that’s got case law, a ton of easy to find case law.

Or are we? ATF has confiscated a number of these supposed "fuel filters"......claiming they are close enough to constitute a silencer.

A person who doesn’t yet have a tax stamp for their suppressor isn’t a prohibited person with regards to suppressors.

No, they would be called a defendant. If "a person...doesn't yet have a tax stamp for their suppressor...." means they are in unlawful possession of a silencer, a federal crime.

Possession can be joint.

Sure, as pointed out on every episode of Live PD.....no one admits the item is theirs, every gets charged.

Everyone within arms reach of a firearm has some form of possession of it.

Nonsense. I can be standing beside a police officer and I sure as heck don't have possession of his firearm in any shape manner or form.

As long as one of the people who has possession is in legal possession, and nobody in possession is in illegal possession, it’s generally considered OK, legally. Otherwise a dealer couldn’t let anyone handle a firearm they hadn’t done paperwork on.

No kidding.

But at what point is the person in legal possession considered no longer present?

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.

There is obviously a limit, or a dealer could say, “just tell me the combo of your safe and I’ll ‘store it in your safe’ until the stamp comes back, and you can use it as long as you check in with me each time.”

Well, that obvious limit is stated in federal law. It remains on the dealers premises or in his immediate control and his possession.
"Storing it in your safe"? Dude, that's not even close to being questionable, but clearly violates ATF regulations and federal law.

There may well be case law that gives us an answer there, but it isn’t the stuff you are bringing up.

Then provide case law that proves whatever point you are trying to make.

 

[Ed Ames]

Then provide case law that proves whatever point you are trying to make.

Case law to prove the point that some dealers with attached ranges often allow use of silencers at their ranges before the stamp has arrived? That’s more than a little absurd don’t you think?

Nah, this all started with me saying that some dealers allow supervised use, and I don’t know if there is any case law regarding whether that supervision needs to be at arms length or on-prem via whatever supervision the range normally performs.

You were the one who started talking about felons in possession and so on. That tells me you have a point to make (or you are having a hard time - seriously, is everything OK?) and need a way to vent. I don’t have any idea what that point is because so far you haven’t made any connection between your felon in possession scenario and the topic at hand

 

[dogtown tom]

Case law to prove the point that some dealers with attached ranges often allow use of silencers at their ranges before the stamp has arrived? That’s more than a little absurd don’t you think?

Case law isn't needed because ATF regulations permit such use.
Being that its perfectly legal, expecting there to be case law is absurd don't you think?

Nah, this all started with me saying that some dealers allow supervised use, and I don’t know if there is any case law regarding whether that supervision needs to be at arms length or on-prem via whatever supervision the range normally performs.

Again, ATF permits a licensee to allow people to use a firearm, of any type, either on the licensees premises or under the licensees supervision and control.
Again, there is no case law, because regulations PERMIT such use.

You were the one who started talking about felons in possession and so on.

It's important because a felon cannot touch a firearm, much less shoot it. So the standard of possession for him is not the same as a nonprohibited person.
If you think that doesn't matter...well there IS case law on that.

That tells me you have a point to make (or you are having a hard time - seriously, is everything OK?) and need a way to vent.

I would appreciate your concern if it were genuine, but you should be ashamed for asking such a condescending question clearly mean't to demean or belittle another forum member. That isn't High Road bub. Disagree all you want with my opinions, but provide a substantive argument, not falling back on the equivalent of "are you mentally ill or drunk?"

I don’t have any idea what that point is because so far you haven’t made any connection between your felon in possession scenario and the topic at hand

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.

 

[Ed Ames]

Case law isn't needed because ATF regulations permit such use.

What is the limit on “such use”?

Being that its perfectly legal, expecting there to be case law is absurd don't you think?

Nah, it’s a way of saying “there may be legal nuances I’m not aware of.”

Again, ATF permits a licensee to allow people to use a firearm, of any type, either on the licensees premises or under the licensees supervision and control.
Again, there is no case law, because regulations PERMIT such use.

Then why are you going off on tangents about it?

It's important because a felon cannot touch a firearm, much less shoot it. So the standard of possession for him is not the same as a nonprohibited person.

But that wasn’t the scenario in this thread.

I would appreciate your concern if it were genuine, but you should be ashamed for asking such a condescending question clearly mean't to demean or belittle another forum member. That isn't High Road bub.

You misjudge me. I have met you in real life and my concern is genuine.

Disagree all you want with my opinions, but provide a substantive argument, not falling back on the equivalent of "are you mentally ill or drunk?"

I haven’t disagreed with any of your opinions. I’ve questioned the relevance of your posts to the topic at hand.

 

[dogtown tom]

What is the limit on “such use”?

Again, as I wrote in post #18 and again in post#20: ATF permits a licensee to allow people to use a firearm, of any type, either on the licensees premises or under the licensees supervision and control.

Nah, it’s a way of saying “there may be legal nuances I’m not aware of.”

Nope. A licensee either abides by the regulation or he doesn't. If you believe there is a "legal nuance" then state what you think that might be.

Then why are you going off on tangents about it?

I didn't go off on a tangent, I responded to another post:
MCFLYFYTER: I think of it more as who controls it. I can hand my silencer to a stranger and they have possession. So really possession doesn't mean a lot. As long as I control the silencer, anyone can possess it.

That part in red? It isn't necessarily true.

But that wasn’t the scenario in this thread.

So? I'm sorry if my response to MCFLYFILTER disrupted what you think is "the scenario" in this thread, but it is germane to the thread topic.

You misjudge me. I have met you in real life and my concern is genuine.

I'm not judging you, but your snarky comment. No, not for a second do I believe you have genuine concern about my well being, if you did it would have involved a PM or phone call.
Your snarky remark was a pathetic attempt to deflect from your lack of a sound, reasoned response.

I haven’t disagreed with any of your opinions. I’ve questioned the relevance of your posts to the topic at hand.

.....and the thread topic is: Stupid question about what taking possession means
Feeling better?

 

[Ed Ames]

Again, as I wrote in post #18 and again in post#20: ATF permits a licensee to allow people to use a firearm, of any type, either on the licensees premises or under the licensees supervision and control.

Cool. So when it comes to supervision and control, how close must that supervision and control be?

Nope. A licensee either abides by the regulation or he doesn't. If you believe there is a "legal nuance" then state what you think that might be.

I don’t believe one way or another. I don’t know, and was acknowledging that I don’t know. You took that as a vulnerability and have been in full on angry attack mode ever since. Why are you looking for an argument? Acknowledging the potential for nuance isn’t the same as saying there is a nuance.

I didn't go off on a tangent, I responded to another post:

By quoting my post? What did my post have to do with what you now say you were addressing?

I'm not judging you, but your snarky comment. No, not for a second do I believe you have genuine concern about my well being, if you did it would have involved a PM or phone call.

Any snark you may perceive is coming from yourself. If you think that genuine expressions of concern only come via PM and phone calls, well, that’s also on you. You are jumping to a lot of conclusions and seem determined to fight about something.

Your snarky remark was a pathetic attempt to deflect from your lack of a sound, reasoned response.

Response to what? I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said about the laws. My only issue is the fact that you launched into attack mode, directly quoting my post, with a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with anything I was talking about, as though you were itching for a fight.

 

[dogtown tom]

Cool. So when it comes to supervision and control, how close must that supervision and control be?

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.

I don’t believe one way or another. I don’t know, and was acknowledging that I don’t know. You took that as a vulnerability and have been in full on angry attack mode ever since. Why are you looking for an argument? Acknowledging the potential for nuance isn’t the same as saying there is a nuance.

I didn't angrily attack anything or any one.

By quoting my post? What did my post have to do with what you now say you were addressing?

Are you referring to my first response to one of your posts?
You wrote: Indoor ranges that sell silencers around here often allow that. Their argument is that it’s still in their legal possession the whole time, and equivalent to them letting you handle their inventory before purchase.

Don’t know if the practice has ever been tested in court. It seems as though they might need to be in a position to directly supervise at arms length (like the ranges that rent machine guns) vs whatever normal supervision their range has.
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.



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

Any snark you may perceive is coming from yourself. If you think that genuine expressions of concern only come via PM and phone calls, well, that’s also on you. You are jumping to a lot of conclusions and seem determined to fight about something.

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.

Response to what? I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. My only issue is the fact that you launched into attack mode, directly quoting my post, with a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with anything I was talking about, as though you were itching for a fight.

Be specific. Exactly what part of my response do you think doesn't apply to the concept of "possession"?

I "quote" your posts so I can be specific in my reply. If you think that means I'm attacking you you didn't read what I wrote.

 

[MCFLYFYTER]

Why do some people make things complicated to try to prove their knowledge extends beyond the topic at hand?