Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Practical advice we all can use | Main | Federal court forbids enforcement of DC's new "may issue" carry permits »

Henderson v. US decided

Posted by David Hardy · 18 May 2015 10:56 AM

Opinion here. The issue was whether a person convicted of a felony, who had previously turned in their guns, can after conviction sell or transfer their guns to someone not barred from possessing them.

The government argued that the ability to control an item is a part of possessing it, and the law forbids a felon to possess a firearm. The Court didn't buy that, as in 9-0 didn't buy that.

I thought the government's argument so weak that I wondered that they wasted time with it. Most gun control statutes regulate "possession." Under the government's position, any time a gun owner entered, say, DC or New York, he became guilty of an offense even if all his firearms were left back home. He still controlled them, could call back home and ask his family members to move them around or to sell them, and therefore "possessed" unregistered firearms in DC or New York. Ownership and possession may be related, but they are still distinct.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Nor'Easter | May 18, 2015 4:55 PM | Reply

Hallelujah!
As you expressed so well, this underlines the difference between possession and ownership and precludes any torturous "law bending" by the gun grabbers in a position to play these games.
Here's hoping that more sensible decisions from SCOTUS are on the way!

Fyooz | May 18, 2015 7:17 PM | Reply

Was this the case that might also undermine the concept of "constructive" possession? And did that concept suffer any damage?

Anonymous | May 24, 2015 11:29 AM | Reply

Under the government's position, any time a gun owner entered, say, DC or New York, he became guilty of an offense even if all his firearms were left back home.

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Leave a comment