This is how powerful the Oz anti's are.

[Shannow]

Don't get me wrong, this "olympian" is scum. Beat a team-mate's face in, was ordered to pay compensation, declared bankruptcy, then Oz let him compete in the coming Olympics...he's a low life.

However, he's in the states, he and another not so bright mate have some photos taken with guns, post them on facebook, and then this happens.

Google "Nick D'Arcy" in the news section.

The antis hit the news first, forcing the swimming authorities to order the facebook pages pulled, and the men to undergo counselling. These same authorities had no problem with him beating a teammate's face in and declaring bankruptcy to avoid responsibility.

Antis then on every morning news service, with their press gang reporters ambushing the public, jamming photos under their noses, then asking if this was appropriate for an Olympic swimmer...then rant about the American gun culture.

Only saw one guy ambushed this morning say "why not ?" only to be quizzed that they are swimmers, not shooters, which he replied "So our shooting team can't wear speedos ?"

 

[crinkles]

Yeah i saw the fun in that and don't get the hoopla.

 

[edwardh1]

what are antis

 

[The_Eric]

Fear is a mighty powerful thing.

 

[urrlord]

Originally Posted By: edwardh1
what are antis


In this case anti-gun ownership people.Anti-anything people are usually pretty ridiculous.

 

[Shannow]

Australian Olympic Authorities have announced today that he will not be allowed to march for Australia in then opening ceremony, and as soon as his race is over, he'll be flown home.

Of course, we'll let him compete...

This for an entirely legal activity.

While caving a team-mate's face in, and declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying the compensation would have allowed him to march, compete, and stay.

 

[Shannow]

Oh dear...

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/swimming/an-olympicsized-apology-20120610-204ou.html

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Shannow - These blokes are both a disgrace to us here in OZ.
As an ex International Representative Cyclist I can speak with some authority on this matter

I think OZ Swimming were weak from the start and have insulted Dawn Fraser to the max on this issue! AOC were aware of the Legalities of it all and one rich kids daddy's influence................

Keep them home - but NOT based entirely on the gun's issue - on their history! Many of our ball sports "stars" are NOT any better

 

[Shannow]

Doug, as per my first line, he should never have been given the spot in the first place...it's demonstrative of Oz' infatuation with sports and winning that they let him back.

Just loathe the beat-up over this particular issue, when he's got a free kick on beating a team-mate up.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Don't get me wrong, this "olympian" is scum. Beat a team-mate's face in, was ordered to pay compensation, declared bankruptcy, then Oz let him compete in the coming Olympics...he's a low life.

However, he's in the states, he and another not so bright mate have some photos taken with guns, post them on facebook, and then this happens.

...

then rant about the American gun culture.



Were they holding the firearms?

From ATF FAQ:

Q: May nonimmigrant aliens legally in the United States purchase or possess firearms and ammunition while in the United States?
Nonimmigrant aliens generally are prohibited from possessing or receiving (purchasing) firearms and ammunition in the United States.

There are exceptions to this general prohibition. The exceptions are as follows:

(omitted for brevity)

[18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(b) and 922, 27 CFR 478.124, ATF Rul. 2004-1] (emphasis added)


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nonimmigrant-aliens.html#nonimmigrant-possession

 

[Shannow]

Holding them and posing in either a gun shop or at a range (depending on version).

 

[Win]

Well, unless they fall within one of the exceptions (didn't appear to) they should not have had their hands on a firearm.

I didn't look up the underlying law to see how severe a violation this is, but it looks to be inaccurate to say "While what the boys did was not illegal .... "

 

[Shannow]

A lot of Tourists got to the US to experience a gun range, and the local equipment that's not available down home (or in the UK or Europe).

eg. http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2006-04-05-vegas-guns_x.htm

 

[Win]

18 U.S.C. section 922(g)

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable
by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (2), has been
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as
that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to
participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or
threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such
intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that
would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily
injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

(emphasis added)

 

[edhackett]

possess
vb (tr)
1. to have as one's property; own

The rules you posted have to do with purchase or ownership only.

Ed

 

[vossman]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
possess
vb (tr)
1. to have as one's property; own

The rules you posted have to do with purchase or ownership only.

Ed

+1

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: vossman
Originally Posted By: edhackett
possess
vb (tr)
1. to have as one's property; own

The rules you posted have to do with purchase or ownership only.

Ed

+1


No, possess means possess.

You can possess something and not own it, and own something and not be in possession of it. Under the concept of constructive possession, you can possess something and not be in possession of it.

Weren't these bozo's in California?

Consider the unfortunate case of "Babycriptoe" Nevils, United States v. Nevils, No. 06-50485 (9th Cir. 03/19/2010):

"Earl Anthony Nevils appeals from his conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
..........
[1] The federal felon-in-possession statute makes it unlawful for a person "who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to "possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition" which "has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Conviction under this provision requires that the government prove three elements: "(1) that the defendant was a convicted felon; (2) that the defendant was in knowing possession of a firearm [or ammunition]; and (3) that the firearm [or ammunition] was in or affecting interstate commerce." United States v. Beasley, 346 F.3d 930, 933-34 (9th Cir. 2003). "To establish that a defendant acted 'knowingly,' the prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew that his possession of a firearm was unlawful; the prosecution need only prove that the defendant consciously possessed what he knew to be a firearm." Id. at 934. For purposes of this appeal, Nevils contests only this element of knowledge. According to Nevils, the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed the firearms and ammunition at issue because there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was aware of the loaded firearms found on or near his body in the apartment.
...........
We first turn to Nevils's argument that the evidence produced at trial was not sufficient to eliminate the possibility that he was merely present in the apartment. Under our case law, as noted above, if evidence produced at trial established only Nevils's presence in the vicinity of contraband, it would be insufficient standing alone to support a finding of knowing possession of firearms and ammunition beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chambers, 918 F.2d at 1459; see also United States v. Sanchez-Mata, 925 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that knowledge that drugs are present in a car is not enough to prove involvement in a drug conspiracy); United States v. Behanna, 814 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1987) ("When the government charges an individual with possession of a weapon in a vehicle, we have squarely held that the government must do more than show that the defendant was present as a passenger in the vehicle and within reach of the weapon.").

[6] On the other hand, evidence that shows more than mere presence is sufficient to support a finding of knowing possession of contraband. For example, in United States v. Gutierrez, 995 F.2d 169 (9th Cir. 1993), we affirmed a defendant's conviction for firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) where a firearm was found in the seat below each passenger (including defendant) and officers testified that they saw the defendant make "suspicious or furtive movements inside the car." 995 F.2d at 172 (internal quotation marks omitted). After noting that "t would tax credulity to assert that [defendant] was sitting on top of a pistol without knowing of its presence, or that he just happened to be a passenger in an automobile equipped with a pistol for each passenger, and that he knew nothing of that odd coincidence," and considering the officers' testimony that they witnessed defendant's "furtive movements," we held that the "jury had ample evidence to support its finding" that the defendant had possession of the weapons. Id. at 171-72; see also United States v. Carrasco, 257 F.3d 1045, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the jury did not plainly err in finding that defendant knowingly possessed shotgun shells left in plain view in the car he owned, along with other items such as drugs, money, and baggies that were known to be used "for the packaging and sale of drugs"); United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 279-80 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, Nevils argues that the evidence introduced at trial shows only his presence in the apartment, and is consistent with the innocent explanation that third parties entered Apartment 6 while Nevils slept, and then left their loaded firearms and drugs behind when they became aware of police in the vicinity. Nevils notes that the government did not introduce any evidence of fingerprints tying him to the loaded firearms, drugs, or any other item in Apartment 6. Nevils also points to the officers' testimony that the apartment was unsecured and located in a high-crime neighborhood, where drugs and firearms were presumably abundant. Nevils contends that because the government did not rebut his innocent explanation, and because this theory is as likely to be true as the theory that Nevils was aware of the loaded firearms found on his body, the government failed to make its case.
............

Nevils had a good lawyer, but he got 77 months for prohibited person (felon) in possession (ownership or purchase is irrelevant) of firearms.

Shannow, what's the maximum possible term of imprisonment in Oz for beating someone's face in? More than one year? The guy was probably also prohibited under section 922(g)(1), in addition to the prohibition as a foreign national.

 

[Shannow]

This is just a question...

if it's "illegal", then why do these ranges offer foreigners, openly, the chance to go shooting any and all on their premesis, openly, in the media and online, and why hasn't BATF cracked down on them ?

 

[Win]

Beats me, I'd like to know myself.

It's not like the above statute is obscure - it's the basic statute that dictates who cannot possess a firearm under federal law. There are some others that put additional restrictions on purchases (straw man, for example).

Off the top of my head, they could get a waiver from the top federal law enforcement officer. Considering that person is Eric Holder, that's probably all that needs to be said about that, and the concept of executive waivers of law is dubious, at best.


They may be an exception under section 922:

"(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 ......"

But if you're just a tourist who stops off at a gun range to fire a machine gun, or fondle 1911's in a gun shop, that doesn't look to fit.

Or interstate commerce may not be involved. My state has small firearms manufacturers (Wilson Combat is next town over from our place at the lake) and ammunition manufacturers (Remington, among others). In the absence of interstate commerce, you look to state law to see if they are prohibited. I don't think they would be in my state, but I haven't looked at the case law on it.

The firearms they were photographed with may not have been firearms. A lot of hollywood types are prohibited persons so realistic looking, but totally non functional, firearm replicas exist that prohibited persons can possess for acting.

Anyway, the statement in that publication that "While what the boys did was not illegal .... " looks to me to be open to question.

 

[edhackett]

Win, your examples are correct in that under the law it is possible to be in possession without owning. That is implicit in the possession definition I know. Sorry I didn't make that clear in my quick post. That said, the cases you sited do not apply to the situation we are discussing.

It is legal for a non citizen to handle and use guns in the U.S. They can rent for use on a range, handle in a gun shop, or use borrowed guns in the presence of the legal owner. In these cases the non citizen may be in physical possession of the gun, but legally the gun shop owner, range operator(or their employees), or legal private owner are considered in legal possession of the firearm. They can't go out on their own with a borrowed or stolen gun.

I held a BATFE explosive permit for many years. Under that permit I could "sponsor" a flyer who did not hold a permit. We would go the the vendor, the flyer would show proof that he/she held the proper certification to purchase the motor or that this motor was to be used for a certification flight. The flyer would pay for the motor. The vendor would hand the motor to me and log the sale under my permit. I would hand the motor to the flyer and accompany them to where they were going to assemble the motor and prep the rocket. Once that was done I would accompany them to the flight line and remain until the rocket was flown. I then logged the motor in my log as bought and used on site. I was in legal possession of the motor the entire time, but he flyer could use the motor under my supervision.

Ed