If the law defines "loaded" in that way, then that's what the law says and that's how it will be enforced unless it is challenged and struck down. That's not a fantasy, that's just the reality of how the law works. They aren't saying that the gun is 'loaded' in the sense of the common definition of 'loaded', they are merely defining a particular legal offense in a particular way using legal terms that have been given a special legal definition.To my mind this is in the same fantasy (and its the law in some places) where, if you, the ammunition and the firearm are in the same compartment of a vehicle, the gun is considered "loaded".
That's the way it should be -- if you're going to allow "constructive possession" at all -- but history tells us that's not how the BATFE operates.JohnKSa said:If we are talking about constructive possession, that's not about getting caught with the system actually assembled and functioning as an illegal firearm. That would be a clear violation, not constructive possession.
For it to be constructive possession, there would have to be a combination of parts (not already assembled) that could not be used in any other way other than to assemble an illegal firearm.
If the "shoelace" were found, already configured so that there was no other reasonable use than to convert a firearm to full auto, in the possession of a person who also had a firearm that it would fit, that would be constructive possession.
But that is hardly the same thing as just happening to own a shoelace. There are clearly many other legal uses for shoelaces. To lace up shoes, for example.
So no, just "happening to own" a shoelace and a semi-automatic rifle is not constructive possession.
(Former ATF official Robert E. Sanders) noted that ATF once issued a letter ruling saying a 14-inch shoestring was a machine gun because it could be used to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. The letter was later rescinded.
You don't have to agree with a ruling to understand it, and understanding it is what's important when discussing the law. That's how you avoid getting into trouble.Yeah , I believe the 9 circuit defined an unloaded firearm with ammo near by as a fully functioning firearm and believe it is still good precedent .
Yeah, then they just banned open carry altogether. Big win for us!Haha wrong , people started open carrying and the ultra anti’s freaked out seeing guns on hips at the stores etc . That ordinance didn’t last very long.
As it should have been.(Former ATF official Robert E. Sanders) noted that ATF once issued a letter ruling saying a 14-inch shoestring was a machine gun because it could be used to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. The letter was later rescinded.
Pretty much. The law can be confusing, use non-standard terminology, and be counter-intuitive. IMO, one of the biggest mistakes the founding fathers made was to allow lawyers/legally educated persons to be involved in the legislative process. The result is that the laws are mostly made by and for lawyers.Understanding that the law says a fish is a bumblebee is not fantasy, it is a sad reality.
one of the biggest mistakes the founding fathers made was to allow lawyers/legally educated persons to be involved in the legislative process.