Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Legality Question About "possession"


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 bigred

bigred

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 62 posts
  • Location:Tonkawa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Civil War and WWII Reenacting, All areas of History, Computers, Firearms.

Posted 24 October 2004 - 08:52 PM

Allright guys, I've got a legal question for those who might know. I currently own a SBR Kahr TM-1 for use at WW2 reenactments. A buddy of mine, not yet 21, would like to get one, except for the fact we all know: You must be over 21 to register a SBR. Here's the question and hypothetical scenario: My buddy gives me his money, I buy and register the gun in my name. The gun stays with me. I take it to ww2 events. Here's the question: Is it legal for him to use it at the event as long as he is under my supervision? And what would be the definition of the supervision?

For instance, a Class 3 owner must be registered to have a class 3 weapon in his possession, but a non-class 3 individual can handle that class 3 weapon as long as the class 3 owner is supervising them. Correct? Otherwise, shooting ranges that allow you to rent F/A weapons would be daily breaking the law, and our own wives wouldn't be able to handle our guns.

Therefore, would it be legal for a non-class 2 (SBR) individual to use a class 2 weapon (in this case a SBR) as long as that individual is under the supervision of the class 2 licensed owner (myself in this case)?

The next question would be, "What is considered "supervised" versus "unsupervised"?

Any takers who might know?
Thanks in advance,
Jaron
  • 0

#2 JTinIN

JTinIN

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Machine guns and Flintlocks

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:09 PM

My rule is if I stay with in light of sight of the other person with a NFA firearm and in the same general location (i.e. same hundred yard range with controlled access).

Figure the only time is an issue if someone would ask the person with the borrowed NFA firearm questions and in which case you should be with in sight to walk over and say "this is mine what can I do to help".... the other answer would be this is not mine and I have no idea where the person is ... let me get back with you .... might not work so well.

Do not think being out in the field and not knowing where you are (assume be over the next ridge etc.) would be a good idea.

Regards
John


  • 0

#3 bigred

bigred

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 62 posts
  • Location:Tonkawa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Civil War and WWII Reenacting, All areas of History, Computers, Firearms.

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:42 PM

Well, there is no straw man argument there. It would be no lie on a Form 1 either. It would simply be a temporary, 2 year loan of the necessary $$, in order for me to own 2 SBR weapons. At the end of 2 years, when he is 21, the loan would expire when it is registered in his name. That part is completely legal. Owning both and taking both to an event is completely legal. That's not really the issue. The issue is more about where the line is drawn about possession between "supervised" and "unsupervised". That's really the issue.
For instance, it's the same issue as whether at an event, if I need to go to the rest room, must I take the SBR into the portajohn w/ me or is it ok for someone to hold it while I do my business. I would think that I wouldn't have to hold the SBR while performing the task at hand. So it's about where that line is drawn by what is legal and what is not. But with all due respect, the gun would be bought by and for me, registered in my name and in my ownership and possession. So it shouldn't be a straw man as the ATF or I see it. I certainly am aware that it is by far better to be safe than sorry, which is why I'm asking. Is anyone aware or familiar of any written form of definition that the ATF uses in these kinds of cases?
Thanks again,
Jaron
  • 0

#4 bigred

bigred

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 62 posts
  • Location:Tonkawa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Civil War and WWII Reenacting, All areas of History, Computers, Firearms.

Posted 24 October 2004 - 11:13 PM

LOL. Hardrede, I think you are interpreting attitude with me where none exists. And btw, thank for the phone number and the quote. biggrin.gif Very helpful information (with of course I believe a "light" touch of attitude given with it dry.gif )
I'll give them a call tomorrow and see what they say. Could you send me the whole article that you took that quote from to jaron_hudgins@yahoo.com? I would like to read it a bit more thoroughly as I look into this whole thing. But from that excerpt, I gathered that the "straw man" they are speaking of is actually buying the firearm with an ineligible person's money and then handing that weapon over to that ineligible person for their own personal possession. Basically, a middle man, who buys from the dealer and then gives to the ineligible person.
If that's the situation it's referring to, wouldn't my situation be completely different? In that , it would always be either under my possession or under my supervision. It goes home with me. It stays at my house. I, in every legal sense, own and possess that weapon. (If that is incorrect thinking, correct me. I'm honestly asking here, not arguing.) Now I admit that the overall purpose of all this effort would be for him to be able to use it at ww2 events, but it would still not be in his possession until after he turns 21 and has it registered in his name. Not to mention, the one he would be registering and owning once he turns 21 is the TM-1 that I already have, not the 1927 that I would be buying. Perhaps I did not explain the situation thoroughly enough in the first post, which then lead to the initial disagreement. I would not be buying a thompson so he could have possession of it.
Thanks again for the input smile.gif , I'll give the NFA branch a call,
Jaron
  • 0

#5 bigred

bigred

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 62 posts
  • Location:Tonkawa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Civil War and WWII Reenacting, All areas of History, Computers, Firearms.

Posted 24 October 2004 - 11:33 PM

I appreciate your concern completely, and will certainly discuss the issue with the people at the NFA branch. Don't worry about me doing anything to land me in jail. I'm a soul of caution. If the NFA people say not a good idea, I will certainly go by what they say. It was not him that came up with the idea, so it's not impatience on his part. Our WW2 group doesn't have a 1928 thompson currently, and he just happens to be the only one of us with any money. Like I said, I'll check with the NFA guys tomorrow and see what I can find out.
Thanks for the phone # again, I had lost that. I have it saved in my phone now. wink.gif
Jaron
  • 0

#6 PATHFINDER

PATHFINDER

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Automation Alley, Michigan

Posted 25 October 2004 - 08:18 AM

I do not want to get into the legatlity of the planned purchase. Outta my leauge and the age thing is scarry. But is letting someone underage shoot the weapon illegal 'possesion' on thier part?

BUT, letting someone use an NFA at a re-enactment has been explained numerous times by the ATF as, being at the same address= being under your control. I have friends who rent NFAs at events and and have covered this many times.
The form you must send in PRIOR to taking your NFA to an event (out of state) calls for an address where the weapon will be (temporarily). As long as both of you are at this address together it is legal.

I have over 150 re-eneacting events spreadout over 12 or so years and two continents and I have never seen an ATF agent 'run the "re-enactor" circut'.
Now I have seen local police called in when we KNEW someone was illegaly possessing something and I have seen two slightly intoxicated FBI agents that are re-enactors drive a motorcycle off into the woods by accident but I have never seen an ATF agent spring forth from the bushes.
  • 0

#7 Rev. Mike

Rev. Mike

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 17 posts

Posted 25 October 2004 - 11:05 AM

BigRed,
I for one would not want to wave a red flag at the federal bull. But if you do make that phone call, please by all means let this forum know how it came out.
  • 0