04-30-2021, 05:57 PM
(04-30-2021, 05:34 PM)Dill Wrote: These seem like substantial points to me. A clear contrast. If I understand you, there is no motivation to "save a friend" in the case of illegal substances, since that puts the savior in jeopardy, perhaps of a felony.
Fred ignores a very substantial point here. Most firearms in the possession of criminals are stolen. While there are certainly instances of straw purchasers, the vast majority of firearms found during things like home or vehicles searches are stolen. A stolen firearm is confiscated regardless of who claims possession. In the event of a straw purchaser, if the person who purchased the firearm is present, or had reasonable access to the vehicle/residence then the firearm wouldn't be confiscated even if there was a complete registry.
Quote:I have never heard of "constructive possession" though.
As usual Fred is both oversimplifying the concept and misstating its actual implications in such a scenario. Say a residence in which ten people live (not at all unusual btw) is searched and five kilos of heroin is discovered. Everyone who resides there, hell everyone with common access, to the residence is in constructive possession of the heroin. There is no way in hell the DA's office will charge everyone in that home with possession of said heroin.
Quote:Is the legal logic that, in the case of an illegal substance found on the floor of a vehicle or someone's living room, SOMEONE must be legally in possession of it, and if no one cops to ownership, then ALL present can be charged--because unlike the unregistered weapon, it is illegal for anyone to possess it at all?
Technically yes, in reality not at all. Remember, a criminal case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You think in the above scenario that every single defendant charged wouldn't make the argument that it belonged to someone else, hence raising reasonable doubt in every instance? This is why evidence used to acquire a warrant is so key to determining possession. In the event of a spontaneous search prompted by reasonable suspicion, or a parole/probation search there will be other factors at play to determine possession. Quite honestly, usually someone makes a spontaneous statement that it belongs to them. Criminals aren't the brightest people and often talk themselves into trouble they could have avoided if they had just shut up.
Fred is making a very poor, and bad faith argument here. He refuses to cite any evidence that his proposal will have any effect on gun violence. He has provided nothing but logical fallacies, straw man arguments and appeals to emotion. Maybe you can engage with him in this regard and get him to provide an argument with some substance? Lord knows no one else has been able to prod this out of him in this thread.
