« HSUS loses charity rating | Main | Jim Bovard remembers Mike McNulty »
Supreme Court argument in Henderson
The government's "constructive possession claim didn't get very far. The government had been contending that designating to whom the firearms could be transferred was "control," and hence exercising illegal "possession." Then before argument they conceded that Henderson could transfer them to a licensed dealer. Looks like they didn't prepare for "if his transfer to a dealer isn't possession, how can his transfer to a nondealer be possession? There's no difference in terms of exercising control"?
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Okay, so the government is now fine with the felon selling his own guns through an FFL but not a private party sale to a person selected by the felon. I liked Alito's question best, which implied that as long as the person the felon wants to transfer the guns to is legal to own them, then there should not be a problem. Because ultimately, that person can go buy any gun and give to the felon anyhow. Kinda.
I think this whole case is a waste of time.
Jim: It is really not a waste of time in that you will start seeing more government is blue states trying all sorts of options to get their hands on someones guns.
A friend died recently. His collection was quite large meaning 600 plus firearms both handguns and long arms. The local prosecutor was seizing the firearms (mostly handguns) and complained that they weren't all there. Not sure of the whole story but my friend was in the process of moving to a free state and had transferred many there already. The prosecutor was not happy. Fortunately the family has a good lawyer who knows the field very well. Anyone want to guess what state it might be and it is not NY
Rich, sorry, I meant its a waste of the governments time. The government all but conceded plaintiff's case at oral argument. Even the liberal justices were giving the government a fairly hard time.
As to which state, I would guess NJ, bit how could someone in NJ get that many guns to begin with? Why was a prosecutor involved, if the owner passed then the guns belong to his estate.
Jim
The government is in the mode of working everything to the very end in hopes that you run out of money or it gets lucky. No brain involved in that. you are right about the state and this was accumulated over decades. He had a really good job and a trait of buying at least one of everything he liked and usually two or more. Not sure why the prosecutor got involved though I suspect just overreach because handguns were involved. It is NJ after all.
Hi Rich, well I do hope your friends estate gets the firearms or at the very least fair market value for them. i really hate NJ.
Read Federalist 84 and explain under what grant of power the feds can even make such laws. There are no police power grants under commerce like that under counterfeiting. We live in a Union where the 99.99% of what the government does is either extraconstitutional or unconstitutional.
Hamilton warned about having a Bill of Rights because the dummies would think it was there to stop the feds from doing something BUT as Hamilton said the feds don't have any authority to legislate in any of the areas covered by the BoR.
Important case in regard to the gun trusts I have drafted for individuals about to plead guilty to a felony/misdemeanor wobbler, or in 5150 situations. Government position makes no sense.