TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:Stevie_d:

Your post brings up a very good point that I had not considered. In states other than Texas (like Illinois), the comparison of the two might be possible. In Texas, of course it would not be.

We do need to consider the constructive possession of the firearm, but there is a flaw with his logic. The comparison of the two lists would not be sufficient to generate any type of search warrant or confiscation list. It is missing any element to suggest that the firearm is not secured, so the mere fact that there is a gunowner in the house and a prohibited person in the house would not constitute probable cause, IMHO.

Obviously, there are judges in some places (NYC federal district comes to mind) who would disagree with me on the PC argument, though.

What needs to happen is that some common sense needs to be injected into the parole system in regards to family members, or others closely associated with the paroled individual, who just happen to be law-abiding citizens and carry a firearm for lawful purposes...

We are not criminals, we do not warrant any drakonian, intimidating misinformation from "some" (not all) P.O.'s and others in this system when it comes to conditions like this...

I am also NOT at all bashing the NRA for its position on this...

I want to try to figure out why other "pro" organizations are negative on this deal...

Their protest seem to have hit a cord with a wide variety of people in our ranks, and I do not like to see divisiveness like this...

Even though my intent was to instigate discussion on facts, and what is actually being talked about out there...I found this in another forum I frequent and the poster ID "Old Ironsides" is someone who has been around for a while over there...Its another interesting viewpoint and commentary...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's worse than you think. This is a bit "legal", but here it goes...

If HR2604 passes, Constructive Possession is the legal principle that gives the Antis all the power they need to begin confiscating privately owned firearms.

Let's take this step by step... a Due Dilligence that the NRA thought unnecessary:

#1. A person lawfully owns (licensed, FOID, Vermont, whatever) firearms.

#2. A member of the Gun Owner's family/household, due to no criminal activity but only an "adjudication" by a "lawful authority" or "involuntary commitment" becomes a "prohibited person" - and placed in the NCIS. (See what happened to the kid who protested Corpus Christi above)

#3. All firearms and ammunition in a household not secured so as the "prohibited person" cannot have even accidental access (as defined and inspected by the BATFE) is, by definition, "Constructive Possession".

#4. According to CFR Title 18 (922 & 925) "possession" by a "prohibited person" is a punishable violation of Federal Law.

#5. Simple correlation of the NCIS and extant Public Records (FOIDs, CCW/CCP licenses, (4473s?)) would be Sufficient Cause for a Warrant & Seizure of "firearms in possession of Prohibited Persons".

Net Result:

EVERY HOUSEHOLD WITH A "PROHIBITED PERSON" IS/WILL BE SUBJECT TO FIREARM CONFISCATION.

This is technically true now, but, as of yet, because of the medical privacy laws that HR2640 will subvert, there is NO WAY for the BATFE/Anti Gun Pols to correlate any households other than those of "Felons" (another issue that deserves debating since "felon" doesn't just mean "violent").

Add the names of tens of thousands of "adjudicated" persons - everything from once-suicidal-teens to post-partum-depressive women to PTSD Veterans to simple "bookkeeping errors" and Psychiatric abuse - and suddenly TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HOUSEHOLDS WILL BE FORBIDDEN TO POSSESS FIREARMS - FOREVER.

(NRA platitudes notwithstanding, the unfunded mandate to create program(s) to provide "relief" will either never have enough funding or be so overwhelmed as to, in either case, to not be useful.)

Not just the individuals on the NCIS, but EVERYONE THEY LIVE WITH.

Period.

No discussions.

The Case Law is there (look it up. Google "constructive possession". True, most cases have to do with drugs, but there are plenty about guns and "prohibited persons" (felons) as well) - waiting to be used by an Anti Gun Attorney General willing to send the BATFE out to "enforce the law".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think some research on "constructive possession" could be interesting...

I might not be the swooftest legal mind in here, but I get the feeling that there is some real holes being started in how much exploiting could be accomplished if the political landscape in the future becomes even more favorable to the gun-control agenda...

I stand to be corrected and welcome being told I might be stretching this a bit too far...If there is NOT anything to worry about in this regard, I feel I have done my duty for the day...And no hard feelings will be hanging around me...

I think it is extremely important we get this particular issue ironed out here...Once and for all...

I have great confidence that we can do this...

Good stuff ELB! Excellent!!!

I wouldn't go that far...There have been plenty of bills that looked good on the surface, and through a few pages after that...

I just hope we get something that helps the process as a whole, and not divide and conquer as it appears this may do, until we get it ALL up on the table for everyone to see...

It actually made some sense to me on the surface at first, yet there was something, until now, that I felt kinda smelled from the get go...

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/alerts ... 2640.shtml

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting analysis...

I'm still going through it, but I figure everyone else here should get a chance to take a crack at it...