Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/23/2010 2:52:06 PM EDT
|
Has anyone seen this auction on Gunbroker?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=186245124 Nice weapon, not so smart seller. Constructive possession at its finest. |
|
Quoted:
Has anyone seen this auction on Gunbroker? http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=186245124 Nice weapon, not so smart seller. Constructive possession at its finest. Just a bunch of parts... |
|
Quoted:
Yeah not the brightest seller at all. It seems he has already been told about the buttstock and vertical foregrip and took them off the weapon. But now he needs to be told to sell them separately from the weapon. I remember seeing it before with the parts on it, and it had the same w***y bidder with no feedback bidding on that one as well. Sellers shill account anyone???
|
| Wasn't one of the last Constructive Possession convictions based on this same weapon (SP89)? Guy (in FL?) sold an undercover Fed an SP89 with that same stock, detached from the gun, but in the case with it's own little compartment in the foam, something like that? |
|
Quoted:
Wasn't one of the last Constructive Possession convictions based on this same weapon (SP89)? Guy (in FL?) sold an undercover Fed an SP89 with that same stock, detached from the gun, but in the case with it's own little compartment in the foam, something like that? jeeze .. there is NO such criminal charge as constructive possession! Either you have possession of what qualifies as an unregistered NFA item or you don't .. I don't think this is too hard of a concept to grasp hold of.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't one of the last Constructive Possession convictions based on this same weapon (SP89)? Guy (in FL?) sold an undercover Fed an SP89 with that same stock, detached from the gun, but in the case with it's own little compartment in the foam, something like that? jeeze .. there is NO such criminal charge as constructive possession! Either you have possession of what qualifies as an unregistered NFA item or you don't .. I don't think this is too hard of a concept to grasp hold of. ![]() This. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't one of the last Constructive Possession convictions based on this same weapon (SP89)? Guy (in FL?) sold an undercover Fed an SP89 with that same stock, detached from the gun, but in the case with it's own little compartment in the foam, something like that? jeeze .. there is NO such criminal charge as constructive possession! Either you have possession of what qualifies as an unregistered NFA item or you don't .. I don't think this is too hard of a concept to grasp hold of. ![]() Does get old, doesn't it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't one of the last Constructive Possession convictions based on this same weapon (SP89)? Guy (in FL?) sold an undercover Fed an SP89 with that same stock, detached from the gun, but in the case with it's own little compartment in the foam, something like that? jeeze .. there is NO such criminal charge as constructive possession! Either you have possession of what qualifies as an unregistered NFA item or you don't .. I don't think this is too hard of a concept to grasp hold of. ![]() You are correct, there is no such criminal charge as constructive possession. You can only be tried, and convicted, of possession. But there is a legal concept of "constructive possession" –– it means that if you possess all the parts to build/assemble something, even if you have never done so, you are legally liable to the same degree as if you had built/assembled the item. Thus, while the actual criminal charge would be possession of an unregistered NFA item, IMHO it is valid to speak of cases in which the individual was arrested and convicted solely for possession of all the neccessary parts as "constructive possession convictions," to differentiate them from cases in which someone was prosecuted and convicted of possessing an assembled, functional NFA item. Making a distinction between possession charges brought for actual possession and those brought for constuctive possession is also useful, and noteworthy. That's because over the years, actual possession charges are most often brought against people who used a complete, functioning NFA item in the commission of a crime ... while so-called constructive possession charges tend to be brought against folks who are otherwise law-abiding, and in the majority of cases were never suspected or accused of any "triggering" crimes. The reality is, if a bad guy owns all the parts to build an unregistered SBR or MG, he's gonna put it together ASAP, because his lifestyle may require him to use it at any time. Which is why most "constructive possesion" cases involve law-abiding folks who (a) like to flirt with the dark side, and want to own all the parts needed when TEOTWAWKI, or (b) are too ignorant of the law to realize they have broken the law by assembling a collection of parts that individually are legal but, when possessed together, are a ticket to the gray-bar motel. YMMV. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Didn't someone down in Florida get busted for posting the exact same configuration a year or so ago? ![]() I just said the exact same thing and got shit on. Timing, I guess. Ah, this is a discussion forum. Folks dissected your post and focused on the "constructive possession" term rather than the substance of it. Hey, ya won in the end, didn't ya! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Didn't someone down in Florida get busted for posting the exact same configuration a year or so ago? ![]() I just said the exact same thing and got shit on. Timing, I guess. Ah, this is a discussion forum. Folks dissected your post and focused on the "constructive possession" term rather than the substance of it. Hey, ya won in the end, didn't ya! Yeah, I know. Foolish me, I just believed this headline: Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR Especially this part: While some may say that this is a possession issue and not constructive possession, the fact is that constructive or actual possession are only ways to prove possession and as such there may be little significance between the two.
Little did I know I'd run afoul of such great judicial minds here on ARFCOM. |
|
I know Federal law / NFA is different, but here in CT we have TWO sections in our AWB about constructive posession... and I'm sure up here they would try and give you the chair for simply having the ability to make an SBR without a getting a stamp first.
Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:
(1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol; (2) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person; (3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria: (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: (i) A folding or telescoping stock; (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) A bayonet mount; (iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) A grenade launcher; or (B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: (i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; (iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; (iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and (v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or (C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following: (i) A folding or telescoping stock; (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and (iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or (4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person. Fortunately the following is a grandfather clause good for everything except select fire and those items banned by name, provided the receiver/firearm was built prior to Sept 13, 1994. Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.
Crazy AWB law but at least our carry laws are much better - we can carry a pistol/revolver anywhere except school grounds, federal buildings, places that legislative branch of government meets, and anywhere that doesn't have a sign posted saying "no firearms" |
Armory Sponsor