Constructive Possession?

Plenty of time to think while watching the Feb. 06 testimony from the overflow room. My brain set to wondering how the proposed legislation could be twisted against otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Say, for example, I were to purchase a Ruger Mini-14. Not the regulated folding-stock model, just a normal run-of-the-mill ranch rifle. Now, say that I also purchased a thumbhole stock for the Mini-14. If both are sitting in my gun cabinet, not assembled to each other, am I in constructive possession of a "copycat assault weapon"?

I think I am. I also think any prosecutor could easily demonstrate constructive possession, as I know about both items, and I "have the power and intent at a given time to control them."

Extend this a bit - consider that I might own two Ruger Mini-14s (in spite of them being unicorns these days). Let's say that one is a scary copycat assault weapon under 281, and the other is a bone stock ranch rifle. Through constructive possession, there are *two* assault weapons in my locker because the thumbhole stock on Rifle A can easily be moved to Rifle B, I have knowledge of both, and I can exert control over both.

The Mini-14 is one of my favorite examples of the "Constructive Idiocy" of this bill.

Your example isn't one I'd thought of though, and I'll add it to my talking points if you don't mind.

Thanks for bringing it up, and I'd have to agree it could be exploited by a gung-ho Trooper/prosecutor.

But I'd rather just defeat the damned thing (and any evil spawn it generates)!!

It's enough to give you a Migraine, Man......

The legislature is too ignorant to care. The way the bills read: you can't own a firearm that....(insert cosmetic feature here). A stock sitting next to a gun safe isn't a "firearm" under federal law. MD's proposed law says the "firearm" can't have the device, there's nothing against you owning it separately.

If you dont own any firearms you won't have anything to worry about.

Ab_Normal said:

If you dont own any firearms you won't have anything to worry about.

Click to expand...

Great point. I wish I was a gunowner!

This isn't a question about possession of a restricted item, it's about constructive possession. BATFE (et al) has set precedent that simply disassembling your suppressor or machine gun doesn't make it cease to exist. While you are not in possession of a functioning machine gun (i.e. pulling on the trigger just moves the trigger around inside the big cardboard box full of parts,) you are in constructive possession of a machine gun - knowledge of the parts and control over them. Their ruling prevents people from dodging a possession charge by disassembling the firearm (as I'm sure happened in the past.)

Turn the Mini-14 situation around. Say that I purchase and register the scary assault weapon, but decide that the thumbhole stock is uncomfortable. If I swap the stock and convert the firearm back to Ranch Rifle configuration, may I de-register it? May I sell it as an unregulated long arm now? (or does BATFE's "once a machine gun, always a machine gun" ruling apply?)

Mr. H (and anyone else) - please borrow and expand on these points. These issues are too important for me to try to restrict with a claim of ownership.

It will all come down to the DA in whatever jurisdiction you are located. If there is a way to read it like you have presented, someone will. And then it's just a crapshoot whether or not a judge agrees.

The proposed law is mute on "constructive possession". Constructive possession orients around proving intent.

Use the NFA as a example. Since there are such strict regulation on the manner and means of owning NFA items, it is easier to prove intent. If I order an SBR upper, I better have a registered SBR lower in my possession when I do. Should I be inspected/raided/ratted out and found to have the SBR upper and normal AR-15s, it is easy to prove "constructive possession" of an SBR. Since there is only one way to assemble an SBR, which is by registering the details of the SBR with the BATFE and getting the go-ahead, possession of the SBR parts absent such registration constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to assemble an illegal SBR.

Substitute SBS, railed foregrip and an AR pistol and no other railed firearm in your collection, modifications to an receiver to accept full-auto FCG parts, etc. Even if not attached or built, the intent is clear.

It gets murky with the proposed laws. The laws themselves do not state possession of previously legal parts is now verboten. Many laws in other state do. Some are poorly written as to allow avoidance via alternate legal configurations that were illegal in other forms. See the Off-List-Lowers, bullet buttons and messed-up stocks on California "assault weapons" for examples.

Yes, a DA may try. But if I have a grandfathered firearm in my possession, the number of parts I have sitting in boxes taken together make it difficult to prove I intended to violate the law. I can think of a dozen ways to build scary looking guns under proposed laws that would be in full compliance in a post-registration era. Not illegal. Fully legal. Terms like "and" and "detachable" mean things.

The purpose isn't to be clear. It is to be vague. To force you to fight it out in court rather than exert your rights. Or make you decide the risk of an overzealous cop or DA isn't worth the hassle.

Matt

So the old question resurfaces....if I (hpothetically) have AR-15 HBAR which I (hypothetically) purchased FTF/ C&C, and later (hypothetically) attach a pencil-profile M4 upper...do I need to register it with MSP?

IANAL.

The worries you have should be moot after United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.. See the analysis by Stephen P. Halbrook, Counsel for Thompson/Center Arms.

But my understanding of "constructive possession" is not the disassembly and assembly as you describe. "Constructive possession is a legal theory used to extend possession to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. Most courts say that constructive possession, also sometimes called "possession in law," exists where a person has knowledge of an object plus the ability to control the object, even if the person has no physical contact with it."

So if you keep goods in a storage facility, you are in constructive possession of those goods. If you keep a gun in a safe deposit box, you are in constructive possession of it.

Now lets say you live with a "prohibited person." If you leave your firearms lying about, then that person may be in constructive possession of them. If you have them in a safe, and that person knows the combination and that there are guns in there, same thing.

If Maryland requires licensing for "regulated weapons" it opens a whole can of worms. Same thing with ammunition if you have somebody under 21 living in your home. If your S.O. doesn't have a license, yet can get at the "regulated weapons", he or she may be in constructive possession.

Again, IANAL.

MigraineMan said:

Plenty of time to think while watching the Feb. 06 testimony from the overflow room. My brain set to wondering how the proposed legislation could be twisted against otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Say, for example, I were to purchase a Ruger Mini-14. Not the regulated folding-stock model, just a normal run-of-the-mill ranch rifle. Now, say that I also purchased a thumbhole stock for the Mini-14. If both are sitting in my gun cabinet, not assembled to each other, am I in constructive possession of a "copycat assault weapon"?

Click to expand...

I had a conversation about this issue with the people I was standing in line with on Wednesday and the only conclusion we arrived at is that it's is a massive gray area.

I actually do have a Mini 14 and it's currently in a tactical stock that would, under the absurdity of this bill, make it a regulated "assault weapon" that I'd have to register. But I also have a standard wooden stock that I could transfer it back into if I didn't want to to register it. My feeling is that if I never put it back into the tactical stock, I could still hold onto the tactical stock because it's mine and it's not illegal to own. The only issue would be with putting a semi-automatic rifle in such a stock.

Let's say I registered my Mini 14 because I wanted to be able to legally use it in the tactical stock. And ...pow pow pow... that was fun, but a few years later I want to sell it because I don't enjoy it much anymore. Would I be able to put it back into the original wooden stock and have it re-designated as a regular rifle and de-registered so that I can sell it? I think I should be able to. Any thoughts on that?

Really, I think the only clear answer is that this bill must be stopped.

Remember the basis of all law is to tell you what you CANNOT do, not what you are free to do.

Maryland lawyer-politicians know exactly what they are doing when they enact such murky language--they are happy to create UNCERTAINTY rather than be clear. That way they get more Gun Control Bang For The Buck.

The proof of that is the circle that CIRCADIA is going around and around in just above me....

marte616 said:

So the old question resurfaces....if I (hpothetically) have AR-15 HBAR which I (hypothetically) purchased FTF/ C&C, and later (hypothetically) attach a pencil-profile M4 upper...do I need to register it with MSP?

Click to expand...

No.

Don't fall into this trap, just make sure nothing get passed.

Personally, I'm done giving a Sh!t what .gov thinks is legal or not. There are too many laws to follow to not be a felon! The moment you become a gun owner, you might as well accept that you will or have been a criminal at some time or another. So why should anyone bother following ANY of it?

It's at the point that I am going to have to pay for an attorney on retainer just to exercise ANY of my rights!

We hear that 20,000 gun laws are on the books (probably an exaggeration) but liberals are equally dishonest claiming there are only 300 gun laws on the books. There are probably more than 300 in California ALONE (68 pages of laws!!!). However, the ATF has a 500 page book just to cover a synopsis of the laws across the United States for gun laws. 500 F'ing pages!!! I am not able to memorize 15 pages of MD law that applies (with roughly 10 or more laws per page).

Remember the case in Lutherville years ago where the county gun squad confiscated a collection of firearms because the man's son, who was a felon, lived in the basement. They then charged him with possession of a silencer after finding a muffler for a lawn mower on his workbench in the garage. They stated that it could have been there to be turned into a silencer. Never mind that his mower was also in the garage with a rusted out muffler. So yes, the way these nutjobs think, I wouldn't put anything past them.