Can my Brother loan me an ar15?

fabsroman said:

Did you possess the guns before October 1, 2013? If not, then you cannot possess them after October 1, 2013. If your friend had never left your premises, then I would say everything would be cut and dry because your friend was there. Once your friend left, you were in possession of a banned rifle that you had not possessed prior to October 1, 2013. In my opinion, you were in violation of the FSA 2013.

Click to expand...

As swinokur noted above, both were purchased (by my VA friend) long before SB281. Sorry, I probably should've written it clearer.

seemed perfectly clear to me.

swinokur said:

...

Click to expand...

It is perfectly clear. The Fred's FRIEND possessed it prior to October 1, 2013. Fred's FRIEND can bring it into Maryland. Fred's friend can let him shoot it in his presence. However, what Fred's friend cannot do is let Fred possess the firearm outside of his presence. Actually, Fred's friend can "loan" him the firearm without any sweat off his back. The question is whether Fred is in possession of a banned rifled that Fred did NOT possess prior to October 1, 2013.

The part you guys are missing is that just because a firearm was built before October 1, 2013 does NOT mean that somebody in Maryland can be in possession of said firearm if that person did NOT possess that firearm prior to October 1, 2013. I cannot loan one of my pre October 1, 2013 AR-15's to a family member of mine in Maryland or anybody else in Maryland for that matter because they did NOT possess that firearm before October 1, 2013.

If the OP wasn't breaking the law, he might as well have his buddy "loan" him the firearm for an indefinite period of time. That would be the easiest way around this law IF a person from out of state was able to loan a pre October 1, 2013 "banned long gun" to somebody in Maryland.

Focus on "possession"

So if Fred has prior to Oct 1 borrowed and possessed , did he possess it before Oct 1, making the travel and loan in MD legal?

swinokur said:

So if Fred has prior to Oct 1 borrowed and possessed , did he possess it before Oct 1, making the travel and loan in MD legal?

Click to expand...

If that is the facts of the matter, then that is the argument I would make. Thing is, I'm not trying to be the one making that argument other than as somebody's attorney.

The General Assembly specifically used possess in the wording. Not owned, had legal title to, etc., but possessed. Essentially, it is illegal to possess the banned rifle unless you possessed it prior to October 1, 2013. If they wanted to have tightened it up, they should have made the exception that somebody that owned a banned rifle continuously from September 30, 2013 until October 1, 2013, may continue to possess it.

fabsroman said:

It is perfectly clear. The Fred's FRIEND possessed it prior to October 1, 2013. Fred's FRIEND can bring it into Maryland. Fred's friend can let him shoot it in his presence. However, what Fred's friend cannot do is let Fred possess the firearm outside of his presence.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about this its not “possession” if Fred’s friend lets him shoot in his presence? I certainly agree that this is the way should be enforced. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the term “possession”.

Possession requires the showing of some control or domination over the contraband. If your buddy hand you his AR15 and you poped off a few rounds down range – are not exercising some control or domination over the rifle?

Here is another example: Your buddy is burning a joint, you take just one puff and quickly hand it back – did you not exercise some control or domination?

Such action would be sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of CDS for the guy taking just one drag of the joint. Why would the result be any different for Fred’s friend?

Possession is possession when dealing with contraband, be it CDS or Assault Weapons.

anderson76 said:

Are you sure about this its not “possession” if Fred’s friend lets him shoot in his presence? I certainly agree that this is the way should be enforced. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the term “possession”.

Possession requires the showing of some control or domination over the contraband. If your buddy hand you his AR15 and you poped off a few rounds down range – are not exercising some control or domination over the rifle?

Here is another example: Your buddy is burning a joint, you take just one puff and quickly hand it back – did you not exercise some control or domination?

Such action would be sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of CDS for the guy taking just one drag of the joint. Why would the result be any different for Fred’s friend?

Possession is possession when dealing with contraband, be it CDS or Assault Weapons.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think possession will be defined just like it is for drug possession. However, if somebody says that the drugs found in the vehicle is theirs, then it usually ends up getting tagged to them. Not everybody can be in possession of the rifle. If law enforcement was to show up at the range, my advice would be for Fred's friend to hold the rifle at that point and for Fred not to touch any of the friend's firearms. If they get pulled over, Fred's friend should say they are his. There are ways to deal with possession, but it is really, really hard to do it when Fred's friend leaves the guns at Fred's house and then leaves or leaves them with Fred and leaves Fred on his own?

Your right about LE attributing possession of CDS to whomever cops to it. However those situations pertain to scenarios where CDS is found in, lets say, a vehicle occupied by multiple persons and no one is caught in the act of smoking. However, if LE observes everyone partaking in the act – then everyone will likely be charged.

I however disagree with you statement that “not everybody can be in possession”. Maybe not everybody can be in actual possession of the contraband however multiple persons can be in constructive possession depending on the circumstances.

So if LE observes 2 persons shooting and Assault Weapon, both are in possession even if the rifle is only in the hands of one party.

anderson76 said:

Your right about LE attributing possession of CDS to whomever cops to it. However those situations pertain to scenarios where CDS is found in, lets say, a vehicle occupied by multiple persons and no one is caught in the act of smoking. However, if LE observes everyone partaking in the act – then everyone will likely be charged.

I however disagree with you statement that “not everybody can be in possession”. Maybe not everybody can be in actual possession of the contraband however multiple persons can be in constructive possession depending on the circumstances.

So if LE observes 2 persons shooting and Assault Weapon, both are in possession even if the rifle is only in the hands of one party.

Click to expand...

You are correct. When LE starts doing stakeouts at shooting ranges, that is when we are going to have some really good test cases and some really pissed off gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters.

Edit to add: There is a huge difference between undergrad/law school and the real world. I found that while schooling can teach you theory, etc., it is nowhere near real world application. Kind of like recording a will with the Registrar when the decedent does not have a pot to piss in. The law says that anybody in possession of a will must record it after a person passes, but what sense does that make where the decedent does not have anything? Unless of course some asset springs up out of nowhere.