 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Question on gun possession
I have a British friend who visits when on leave and was wondering what the legality of him borrowing a rifle from me and taking it go shooting (at the range or woods, etc.).
He has 4 tours of duty in Iraq and clearly knows how to handle a weapon just not sure how to advise him on this.
He needs a hunting license. Alaska Small Game license should work ($20 online).
Hunting license would have prevented this (even though he was on the radar for other reasons) :
Karim Moussaoui appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm while in
the United States on a nonimmigrant visa in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(5)(B).
The facts established at trial show that Moussaoui had a rifle in his possession for
some minutes at a shooting range.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...011-02-28.html
REALLY. SO when my Step Brother comes here from Scotland and we go out shooting he's doing something wrong? Or does the fact I am standing next to him make it a different thing? Tourist visa I think.
Yes Sir, he also needs a hunting license in such case. The law that bars non-immigrants from gun possession, is the same law that bars convicted felons from gun possession. The only difference is that there are 2 major exemptions for the non-immigrants: admission to the US for participation in a hunting/sporting event, or possession of a valid hunting license.Originally Posted by Mark W.
And of course a lot of people bring shooting ranges in Vegas as an example, where a lot of tourists shoot machine guns - they are all in violation of federal law.
Two more things to point out.
That is one of those cases of selective enforcement by the feds, and that's due to the background of the law - non-immigrants were added to the list of prohibited persons after 9/11, and the case above (probably the only one in existence) illustrates that. The guy who got convicted was a terrorist suspect.
Second thing is what constitutes possession. While the text of appeal clearly indicates how it was interpreted in that only case, one can also look at pretty long case history for the felons in possession. It's not a secret that even touching a firearm for a felon would be considered "felon in possession", and it also applies to the ammunition (single round).
Now since that's one of those rarely enforced laws, why should one comply with it ? Simple illustration would be a shooting accident. A hypothetical non-immigrant puts a bullet through something he shouldn't have while plinking with buddies, that brings the whole situation to the attention of the cops, and there is then plenty of room for trouble.
When I was working Warrants at Corrections I recall several cases of parolees being busted for possession of ammunition. In one case there were several known gang bangers in a car and all that were on parole were arrested (think it was 6 of them) for felon in possession of ammunition - there was one 9mm bullet found on the floor of the car. Yup 6 on possession of one bullet between them... guess that's what happens when no one (including the driver that wasn't on parole) claims the bullet. Yes it is extreme but on the other hand parolees are not supposed to affiliate with one another (per conditions of parole) unless with family members and parole agent is aware of relationship.
My guess (and only speculation here) is that the cousin from Scotland is far less likely to be arrested than cousin Abdul or cousin Pedro. When is the last time a Scott attacked the US?
Well Good to know my step brother hasn't been here since before 9/11. We had no idea that law changed. And I doubt now that his dad has passed away he will ever venture back (he's now a pot head living on the dole bothering people on the internet)
Right. That was a "feel good" legislation to begin with, and feds normally won't enforce it, until they need it to bust some person of interest. I must say, it's a good tactic - majority of people in this country likes to shoot
Ok, let's look at this: as there is something missing here...922(g)(5) says..."(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;" As their are a ton of different Non-immigrent visa's including sporting (competitive shooting as in the Olympics, hunting..all kinds of things) and, Canada and most of the EU do not need a visa to visit...This does not make any sense.
Second, who/why were there Federal law enforcement personel at this range to identify and arrest this Karim guy??? Something is very smelly with that case.
Anyway, here are some of the "exceptions".
(2) Exceptions. - Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and
(s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that
alien is -
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or
sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or
permit lawfully issued in the United States;
(B) an official representative of a foreign government who is
There is nothing in the 'sporting" part that requires a license OR is in possession of a hunting license... Target shooting is a lawful sporting purpose...Like I said.. that guy whoes appeal was in Justia...that whole thing smells big time...
That's a good point, it took me some quick googling to come up with this :
December 12, 2011
Printer Friendly | Email | Share Your Comments (4)
(GunReports.com) -- ATF last week published a letter to all FFLs explaining that the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel determined that ATF's interpretation of which aliens present in the U.S. are prohibited from purchasing, receiving or possessing a firearm under the Gun Control Act (GCA) is overly broad.
The GCA's prohibition only applies to aliens admitted under a nonimmigrant visa. Some nonimmigrant aliens, including most Canadian visitors, as well as aliens admitted under the Visa Waiver program, are not prohibited and may lawfully purchase firearms. However, ATF cautions FFLs to continue using the current form and abide by current regulations, which remain the law, while ATF expeditiously works to amend the regulations and form.
http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/...es_3624-1.html
So apparently the rules have been changed just recently, thus I wasn't aware of the change
As for the convicted guy mentioned above, he was a terrorist suspect, and was being watched by FBI when he went to the shooting range.
Hhhhmmmm I dont have a direct answer to this question. I will say that with NFA's you have to be the registered owner to be in "possession" of the item. Yet with NFA items I can let others shoot them since legally I am still in possession of them.
Perhaps for the NFA part you would be in possession. But for firearms in general (including NFA items), if the person is prohibited, he is in trouble. And if you knew he was prohibited, you are also in trouble
as you read the other comments, Brits do not need a visa to enter the US...all that 922(g)(5)(b) crap does not apply.
Technically that's not correct. ATF had a certain interpretation, which included VWP persons in the prohibited category. Based on the info I've pasted above,
they are working on changing that, though it's not clear when the new rules will come into effect. Until new information is available from ATF website or
other government source, I wouldn't go by interpreting the law yourself.
ATF is in the process of amending its regulations and forms to conform with OLC’s determination
concerning the proper scope of the GCA. We anticipate that this process will be completed as
expeditiously as possible. Until that process is complete, however, the current regulations have the force
of law. Accordingly, Federal firearms licensees should continue to use the current forms and abide by
the current regulations.
ATF is committed to assisting you in complying with Federal firearms laws. If you have any questions,
please contact ATF’s Firearms Industry Programs Branch at (202) 648-7190
Chad J. Yoder
Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...provisions.pdf
possession does not mean legal ownership. the definition of "possess" has been legally upheld as meaning 'exercising control' or 'dominion' over the firearm. if the individual is in anyway prohibited from possessing or controlling a firearm, it matters not that you (the legal owner) is standing next to them granting them the authority to access to the firearm.Hhhhmmmm I dont have a direct answer to this question. I will say that with NFA's you have to be the registered owner to be in "possession" of the item. Yet with NFA items I can let others shoot them since legally I am still in possession of them.
it also means that it matters not the number of tours in Iraq, or their citizenship. one needs to go through a quick checklist of qualifying criteria, both Federal, then local in order to determine if the individual qualifies for possession
Read the whole thing: The letter is to FFL and concerns formm 4473. It also states:
"Some nonimmigrant aliens, including most Canadian visitors, as well as
aliens admitted under the Visa Waiver program, are allowed to be present in the United States without a
nonimmigrant visa. Those aliens, and others who are lawfully in the country without a visa, are not
within the scope of the GCA prohibition. This interpretation of the scope of persons prohibited by
section 922(g)(5)(B) extends to the scope of transfers of firearms by sellers (including Federal firearms
licensees) under 922(d)(5)(B)."
My Bold: Read the whole Da#$ thing before you say someone is wrong,.
Well, I disagree with you again. First of all, while the letter is issued for convenience of FFL's, the law they're talking about
addresses possession as well, and interpretation of non-immigrant status affects the list of persons who can possess a firearm,
a not only to purchase from an FFL.
Second, the text you've cited and made bold is missing the important sentence - ATF is not stating that those persons are
not affected because it was always like that, instead they are saying that :
Recently, the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, (OLC) has informed ATF that its
interpretation of the scope of persons prohibited by section 922(g)(5)(B) is overly broad
Which means only NOW they think they might be wrong, and will work to change their rules/policies.
Really
I would check with loacl authorities ( Sherriffs office) or immigration office
We use to shoot Silhouettes at natioanlly sanctioned tournaments and had people come up from Mexico all the time.
The only issue was them getting their guns back across the border.
If they are nly shootinh and not hunting - why would they need a hunting license??
I would recommend that the owner accompnay the person to the shooting event.
Might try the NRA on this one
I asked a Canadian immigration officer once about bringing firearms into Canada, and was told that is not allowed. Seeking legal advice from law enforcement in most cases is a bad idea.
To address your question, why would one need a hunting license while just shooting ? Because that's how the law is written, hunting license providing an exemption to otherwise prohibited act of firearm possession by certain foreigners.
My BIL is a Canadian (I am too, but I am also a US citzen) and we shoot, sometimes competitively, when he is down...I KNOW the sporting exemption works, no hunting license required. (unless you are going to hunt) There is even a specific Canadian exemption in the equivilant WA state law.
Just think about this: There were people from all over the world for the Atlanta summer games. It includes shooting sports>>>how come they did not get in trouble? How about the latest winter games in Vancouver, BC? A lot of the athletes trained in WA for that Olympics. I doubt any of them were required to obtain a hunting license so they could "possess" a firearm. Why? Because the shooting sports are exempt, that is why. Always have been.
Posting Permissions
2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks