« Practical advice we all can use | Main | Federal court forbids enforcement of DC's new "may issue" carry permits »
Henderson v. US decided
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
Was this the case that might also undermine the concept of "constructive" possession? And did that concept suffer any damage?
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.
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!