Very likely, and transfer with saleI think too many equate possession with ownership
I think too many equate possession with ownership
Very likely, and transfer with sale
1 a : the act of having or taking into control...
...The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual possession and constructive possession.... Even when a person does not actually possess an object, he may be in constructive possession of it. Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time of exercising dominion and control over an object or over the area in which the object is located. The law recognizes no distinction between actual and constructive possession, either form of possession is sufficient. Possession of an object may be established by either direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove ownership of the object,...
...Transfer encompasses the sale and every other method, direct or indirect, of (1) disposing of property or an interest therein or possession thereof;...
2. Law To make over the possession or legal title of; convey.
Any and every method of removing something from one person or place to another; specifically, the handing over of possession or control of assets or title. ...
(a) It shall be unlawful—
...
(3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...
(a) It shall be unlawful—
...
(5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides..;
...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...
Could be. How is that relevant?What I strongly suspect is that this law is far more commonly ignored than observed.
To be fair, that saying originally referred to malum in se, rather than malum prohibitum laws. It was supposed to be logical. But you're right. That's a moot point now.Well, it's said that ignorance of the law is no defense, so anybody that has read this thread doesn't even have that as an excuse...
Sadly, this applies to great rafts of law.What I strongly suspect is that this law is far more commonly ignored than observed.
Could be. How is that relevant?
That is irrelevant and completely meaningless.Talked with a lawyer specializing in criminal law (a friend of mine) and he said that he’d never seen a case of “illegally giving” a gun to another that wasn’t part of a much larger case.
Talked with a lawyer specializing in criminal law (a friend of mine) and he said that he’d never seen a case of “illegally giving” a gun to another that wasn’t part of a much larger case.
Interesting and not at all surprising but still not relevant to this discussion on this particular forum.Talked with a lawyer specializing in criminal law (a friend of mine) and he said that he’d never seen a case of “illegally giving” a gun to another that wasn’t part of a much larger case.