Can a "convicted felon" browse in a gun store? If so, would she/he be in violation if she/he picked up a gun to look at it? 
Posted on 02/16/2003 10:54:50 PM PST by coloradan
Can a "convicted felon" browse in a gun store? If so, would she/he be in violation if she/he picked up a gun to look at it?
Did have all his guns stolen.
I'm just curious, WT, so maybe you'll indulge me a bit here, ok? If you're listening to a basketball game and the announcer says, "Celtics forward has possession of the ball," do you think that means the ball is not in the Celtic forward's hands?
Well, I admit to being curious, too. Please Indulge me. Footballs are not firearms.
Possession.
Having control over a thing with the intent to have and to
exercise such control. Oswald v. Weigel, 219 Kan. 616, 549 P.2d
568, 569. The detention and control, or the manual or ideal
custody, of anything which may be the subject of property, for
one's use and enjoyment, either as owner or as the proprietor of a
qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who
exercises it in one's place and name. Act or state of possessing.
That condition of facts under which one can exercise his power over
a corporeal thing at his pleasure to the exclusion of all other
persons.
The law, in general, recognizes two kinds of possession:
actual possession and constructive possession. A person who
knowingly has direct physical control over a thing, at a given
time, is then in actual possession of it. A person who, although
not in actual possession, knowingly has both the power and the
intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a
thing, either directly or through another person or persons, is
then in constructive possession of it. The law recognizes also
that possession may be sole or joint. If one person alone has
actual or constructive possession of a thing, possession is sole.
If two or more persons share actual or constructive possession of
a thing, possession is joint.
Actual possession. Exists where the thing is in the immediate
occupancy and physical control of the party. Field Furniture Co.
v. Community Loan Co., 257 Ky. 825, 79 S.W.2d 211, 215. See also
general definition above.
Chose in possession. A thing (subject of personal property) in
actual possession, as distinguished from a "chose in action," which
is not presently in the owner's possession, but which he has a
right to demand, receive, or recover by suit.
Constructive possession. Possession not actual but assumed to
exist, where one claims to hold by virtue of some title, without
having the actual occupancy, as, where the owner of a tract of
land, regularly laid out, is in possession of a part, he is
constructively in possession of the whole. See also general
definition above.
Corporeal possession. The continuing exercise of a claim to
the exclusive use of a material thing. The elements of this
possession are first, the mental attitude of the claimant, the
intent to possess, to appropriate to oneself; and second, the
effective realization of this attitude. All the authorities agree
that an intent to exclude others must coexist with the external
facts, and must be fulfilled in the external physical facts in
order to constitute possession.
Criminal law. Possession as necessary for conviction of
offense of possession of controlled substances with intent to
distribute may be constructive as well as actual, U. S. v. Craig,
C.A.Tenn., 522 F.2d 29, 31; as well as joint or exclusive, Garvey
v. State, 176 Ga.App. 268, 335 S.E.2d 640, 647. The defendants
must have had dominion and control over the contraband with
knowledge of its presence and character. U. S. v. Morando-Alvarez,
C.A.Ariz., 520 F.2d 882, 884. See also Possess.
To constitute "possession" of a concealable weapon under
statute proscribing possession of a concealable weapon by a felon,
it is sufficient that defendant have constructive possession and
immediate access to the weapon. State v. Kelley, 12 Or.App. 496,
507 P.2d 837, 839.
They're screwing with this lady because she's so up front about a subject many in power would like to see fade from public view. You can see how public perception of women and guns in a positive relationship would doom the gun control movement.
The charge is patently absurd. She was no more in possession of a firearm with all the requirements of intent and definition than the Celtic forward was in possession of a football with intent to use it as a deadly weapon.
She had no control of the essential part of a weapon, the ammunition. What she had were lumps of useless hunks of steel, temporarilly with supervision for the purposes of a prop, no title of any kind them, and obviously no ability, or intent, to possess them for the purposes of the states police power.
No, they're not. And basketballs aren't either. But the word "possession" does, in fact, mean "possession." That applies whether you're talking about footballs, firearms, rutabagas or magic 8-balls. And when a judge tells a parolee, "you will not possess a firearm," he means "you will not possess a firearm." WT, even my dog (MY DOG!!!) can understand something that simple. Why can't Katica? And while we're at it, why can't you?
The definition you supplied, illustrates just what I've been saying. Did you read it or just cut and paste?
She was in possession of a firearm. Period. You can tap dance all you want, but it's plain as day that she violated the terms of her parole and, moreover, committed a federal felony. Theorize all you want about "the man" not wanting women to like firearms, but the fact remains -- she was in actual possession of a firearm. It doesn't matter to the court that the firearm wasn't loaded. It doesn't matter to the court that the firearm was possessed for just a minute, that it was not being used to committ a crime, that it was "under the supervision" of its legal owner. None of that matters in law.
She was given a chance to show that she could respect society's rules and keep a simple agreement with the court. She threw that chance away. That is why she's in stir again. And that is why her child is in foster care.
WT, could it be that your animosity toward any federal authority at all has clouded your judgment in this matter? She's a lawbreaker. Lawbreakers go to jail. Lawbreakers belong in jail. And I, for one, am very glad Katica is in jail. I hope she stays there. Because when she gets out, she'll be driving down the street drunk and run someone's child over. Because when she gets out, she'll be selling poisons like hard street drugs to whoever wants to buy. Let her rot behind bars where she belongs.
She was in "possession" of a lump of inert metal. It belonged to a friend. It was disabled and could not be used as a tool to damage society. The owner was present and supervised the use of the prop, and after the pictures werer taken, the owner took back the firearm.
Even if you isolated each word in the part I highlighted without imparting any sense of the spirit of that law at all, she did not "possess" a firearm according to the definition of "constructive possession".
It's further obvious that the facts of the case were so vague that the call was entirely the judge's. He could have gone the other way with complete justification. He chose to be as hard as he could. And likely for the reason I mentioned.
This lady did not, and had no intent to, do the harm that the law fears will be done with a sidearm. Intent. Do you understand the doctrine of "intent" as it is used in those definitions I posted? If she were caught with a firearm on the street, even unloaded, that intent could be presumed. But using it as a prop for a photograph?
Of her own volition, she took actual possession of it.
In her agreement with the court, there was no "escape clause" contingent on such factors as "intent to do harm," "duration of possession," "legal ownership," "condition of the firearm," "fire readiness" or anything else. Those terms were added by you after the fact and appear nowhere in the actual agreement this woman made with the court.
This chronic offender was given a chance for sentence reduction. All she had to do was keep a very simple and reasonable agreement, ie. to refrain from possessing a firearm. She blew it, so back she goes. Very simple.
I know your heart bleeds for this trashy scofflaw, but your sympathy might be better spent on the 8-year-old child whose own mother's criminality has once again placed in the custody of strangers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.