FITASC said:
Another scenario - I have friends from England who also own a home here in the US and come twice a year for 3 months at a time. I BELIEVE they have a Visa to enter and they bring a few shotguns with them each time. If what I am understanding from the above posts, are they legally allowed to buy ammunition for those shotguns,....
If they are here on a nonimmigrant visa or don't have hunting licenses or don't fall within one of the other exceptions set out in 18 USC 922
, they violate federal law by possessing firearms in the United States or possessing ammunition. The penalty is up to ten years in federal prison.
If they are present in the United States legally without a visa under the terms of the Visa Waiver Program (see post 25), according to the ATF they may possess guns and/or ammunition.
FITASC said:
...is it a case of don't ask don't tell?
What's this "don't ask don't tell" garbage? That is not a defense to a federal crime. That's about getting away with committing a crime. Sometimes people do get away with committing a crime. But the prisons are full of people who did not. See post 14.
carguychris said:
doofus47 said:
What about that rent-a-range in Las Vegas that is famous for renting full-auto weapons to tourists? Can't remember the name. Do they sell TP-grade-hunting licenses?
My non-attorney understanding is that they are relying on the theory that a rental under direct supervision of range personnel does not constitute a transfer or possession under the GCA.....
Nope, that won't work. It would be inconsistent with the understanding of "possession" generally applicable under the law and regularly applied in the successful prosecution of 18 USC 922(g) (prohibited person in possession of a gun) charges. See for example
U.S. v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1997, at 1):
...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,...
means:
1 a : the act of having or taking into control...
And as to the applicability of the common meaning of "possession" see
Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42:
...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...
So a person shooting your gun at the range has dominion and control of the gun, and therefore possession of the gun, even if you're supervising.
The better explanation is prosecutorial discretion. Apparently the Department of Justice doesn't see any reason to bother with those ranges allowing foreign tourists to shoot. But that didn't stop the U. S. Attorney in California from prosecuting some Saudi Arabians who rented guns at a range in San Diego. See posts 9 and 20.
The situation is somewhat similar to federal policy on prosecuting federal marijuana offenses in State which have legalized medical and/or recreational use. In general the Department of Justice doesn't seem bother garden variety sale/use in conformity with state law. That doesn't mean that a marijuana seller or user (or a marijuana user in possession of a gun) won't be prosecuted if the local U. S. Attorney decides circumstances warrant prosecution or prosecution would further federal interests.
Here's current federal policy on prosecution of marijuana offenses.
) - This might play into it as well 