Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 3/28/2012 2:55:12 PM EDT
I've been a criminal attorney for about 15 years. I have heard the terms "constructive intent" and "constructive possession" used ad nauseum when it comes to guns, especially regarding the possession of NFA uppers without the properly registered lower. I have also discussed the terms with attorneys, judges and LE.

This is not my area of practice but for those of you who use it, could you please point me to the section of the CT statutes, the U.S. Code or any other recognized legal source that gives both the definition of the terms and their application concerning firearms. Of course, case law, either state or federal , would also be most welcomed. Thanks.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 3:41:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 3:43:33 PM EDT by Andrapos]

Originally Posted By conndcj:
I've been a criminal attorney for about 15 years. I have heard the terms "constructive intent" and "constructive possession" used ad nauseum when it comes to guns, especially regarding the possession of NFA uppers without the properly registered lower. I have also discussed the terms with attorneys, judges and LE.

This is not my area of practice but for those of you who use it, could you please point me to the section of the CT statutes, the U.S. Code or any other recognized legal source that gives both the definition of the terms and their application concerning firearms. Of course, case law, either state or federal , would also be most welcomed. Thanks.

The only state law I have found is in regards to the Assault Weapons Ban and possession of parts that can be used to readily assemble an assault weapon (banned by name or feature).

TonyK in the NFA section of this site can cite you the relevant Federal/NFA info.



WALL OF TEXT & CT General Statutes

Click To View Spoiler

What is the definition of "rapidly" ??


Link Posted: 3/28/2012 3:42:18 PM EDT
Look at the slidefire stock thread
Andrapos referenced it

Link Posted: 3/28/2012 6:48:34 PM EDT
Neither of those terms exist in the CGS with regard to firearms. most of the instances I have seen anywhere else have to do with drugs.

Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:16:38 AM EDT
There is no definition in the general statutes for "silencer" or "flash hider" even though the words are used in firearms laws.


If you propose we use a term other than "constructive possession" when referring to "any combination of parts from which an assault weapon... may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person" I'm certainly open to suggestions!
Link Posted: 3/29/2012 4:15:48 AM EDT
Welcome to the vaguries of what constitutes the "firearms laws and regulations" in CT. In a nutshell and in my humble opinion, the laws are left vague and grey because it allows the State to interpret them in a way that favors their stance, not the citizen. Take, for instance, the arbitary interpretation of the AK47 "law" that makes illegal any model in 7.62 x 39 but allows any other caliber. Even after being legally challenged the challenge was dismissed by the court before it could even be heard in court. Get caught with one, however, and all that can happen is that it would be confiscated. There are no provisions (to my knowlege) that you would also be arrested. Go figure. The way the laws are written show total ignorance of the technology as pointed out by not haveing a legal description of "flash hiders" or "silencer". Another great example is the list of verboten firearms: some forbidden by name alone with no apparent technical reason while thier identical clones are 'legal'. Even the process of obtaining the required pistol permit is out of control with the power of the state being usurped by local politicians who thumb their noses at the state process and insert their own. It is really an out-of-control situation and when a citizen finds himself running afoul of someone's interpretation of what substitute for laws, they find themselves trying to hit a moving target (pun intended).

Go ahead and try to call someone......anyone in the State to clarify any question about any issue regarding firearms in Connecticut and you'll get ten answers from ten different people all of whom are being paid high five digit salaries and even some breaking six figures. You would think that there might be just one solid source a citizen might contact and be provided with the black and white answer. Because the regs are written so poorly, however, no one really knows what the answers really are. Even the IRS help line gets their answers right more often than not.

I had the pleasure of discussing some of this a number of years back with Bruce Stern while discussing an L1A1 build. I clearly recall that Mr. Stern offered this one truth: He said that even if you follow the letter of the law to the best of your ability, "if you own firearms in Connecticut, you are a potential defendant". How true that is!

Rome

Top Top