This is how powerful the Oz anti's are.

[Win]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
...
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,



Hmmmmm.

27 C.F.R. § 478.97 Loan or rental of firearms.
(a) A licensee may lend or rent a firearm to any person for temporary use off the premises of the licensee for lawful sporting purposes: Provided, That the delivery of the firearm to such person is not prohibited by §478.99(b) or §478.99(c), .....

§ 478.99 Certain prohibited sales or deliveries.

c) Sales or deliveries to prohibited categories of persons. A licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person:

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or, except as provided in §478.32(f), is a nonimmigrant alien: Provided, That the provisions of this paragraph (c)(5) do not apply to any nonimmigrant alien if that alien is—

........

Note how the BATF's interpretation in the CFR's is subtly different from 18 U.S.C. section 922? It omits any mention of "visa" in conection with "nonimmigrant alien".

The statute says:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
.....
(5) who, being an alien -
......
(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)));
........
to ... 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.

Now, look at this Justice Department opinion of October 28, 2011, regarding BATF's interpretation of who is or is not a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. 922 (g)(5). It begins:

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE CHIEF COUNSEL,
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
A provision of the federal Gun Control Act prohibits any “alien” who has “been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa” from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving “any firearm or ammunition” that has a connection to interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B) (2006). In 2002, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) issued an interim final rule interpreting this prohibition to apply to any alien who has the status of “nonimmigrant alien,” regardless of whether the alien required a visa in order to be admitted to the United States. See 27 C.F.R. § 478.32(a)(5)(ii) (2011). In March 2011, in response to a request for informal advice regarding ATF’s interpretation, we concluded that the text of the statute forecloses that interpretation. We explained that the text is clear: the provision applies only to nonimmigrant aliens who must have visas to be admitted, not to all aliens with nonimmigrant status. In May 2011, you requested a formal opinion from the Office on this matter.1 This memorandum memorializes and elaborates upon the informal advice we provided in March. In the course of formalizing our advice, we received views from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”),2 which also concluded that the interpretation reflected in ATF’s interim final rule conflicts with the plain text of the statute.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/nonimmigrant-firearms-opinion.pdf


Finally, this amendment to 47 C.F.R. becoming effective next month:

Amendment(s) published June 7, 2012, in 77 FR 33629
Effective Date(s): July 9, 2012

6. Section 478.99 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:


§ 478.99 Certain prohibited sales or deliveries.
(c) * * *

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or, except as provided in §478.32(f), is an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa: Provided, That the provisions of this paragraph (c)(5) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa if that alien is—

So, it looks like it turns on whether or not the nonimmigrant alien requires a visa in order to be admitted to the United States.

This is not exhauastive of course, just idle curiousity aroused by the comment about the boys having done nothing illegal.

 

[edhackett]

Quote:
27 C.F.R. § 478.97 Loan or rental of firearms.
(a) A licensee may lend or rent a firearm to any person for temporary use off the premises of the licensee for lawful sporting purposes:


I think the words I marked in bold are what are key here. All of the scenarios that I talked about are on premises. As a BATFE explosives permit holder I am licensed as a business. As long as I was physically present the use of the explosives was considered on premises.

I confirmed the legality of the rental, handling, personal loan mentioned above with Tom Forbes, the former importer of Beretta guns, now a local gun shop owner who often has foreign visitors to whom he rents/loans shotguns for use on the trap, skeet, and sporting clays range where his shop is located in Carson City.

Give any gun shop or range where they rent guns a call and confirm for yourself.

Ed

 

[Tempest]

It's just a matter of time now, the US will not be far behind.

There will be individual mandates that one keep their guns unassembled in a 4000 lbs. "approved" safe with $5000 non compliance taxes per weapon if you don't.

Then there will be annual or monthly "safety classes" that one must purchase and attend or there will be non compliance taxes levied.

Ammo will need to be stored in "approved containers" due to its "toxic" material or non compliance taxes will be levied.

I'm sure more ideas will come down the pike.

This is the future of gun ownership in the US.

 

[Win]

It's easier to just make people a prohibited person.

If you look at the cases addressing 922(g)(9) it has a very broad sweep and there are probably a significant number of people that are prohibited persons by that section and don't know it. Yet. And being a prohibited person in possession is up to 120 months in a federal pen, so it's not something to be cavalier about.

Or 922 (g)(1). Just retroactively increase the punishment for a minor offense to a year and a day, instead of a year, and instantly everybody convicted of that offense in the past is now a prohibited person under federal law. Remember, the statute is written in reference to what an individual could be sentenced to, not what they were sentenced to. I believe one northeastern state has already done this. Attempts to challenge this as an ex post facto law will likely fail, although I hope I'm wrong about that.

But, yeah, I haven't yet read the opinion you're talking about but it sounds grim. I suppose if it's a tax, someone who actually pays it will have standing to mount another set of legal challenges, maybe.

 

[Bangaroo]

How can you live in Australia and not have guns? WTHeck?! Aren't there maneaters there? Crocs and buffs?

How are you supposed to defend yourself if an intruder invades your home? Knifes? While the intruder has a gun?

Has crime went down since the ban?

 

[Shannow]

Nah, it's gone up...home invasions in particular.

Suicides are up, but they are down with a gun, so the "firearm homicide" stats are down.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I suppose if it's a tax, someone who actually pays it will have standing to mount another set of legal challenges, maybe.

Maybe, but the Court already ruled that the "no labels" tax was not a tax in regards to the Anti-Injuction Act (hence there was current standing), but IS a tax in regards to the mandate.

Clearly one of the most contrived and nonsensical Court rulings in history. They didn't even define what this new tax IS (like consumption, income, etc.), thus handing plenary power to the government to regulate and tax ALL inactivity.

How do you challenge something that is undefined and unlimited?

 

[Jeff_in_VABch]

Sounds like AU has truly gone from a Monarchy to a prision island.

From reading this news article, AU has truly warped itself and totally demonized guns:

"This incident serves as a warning to all athletes ... about the dangers of social media," Nick Green, Australia's chef de Mission for the London team. said in a statement. "We say again to our athletes, do not put anything up on social media that you would not share with your mother or your grandmother."

What?

You couldnt show a photo of yourself, sober and with all your clothes on, to you mother or grandmother because you are in a gunshop?

Twisted.

 

[kb01]

When I have family visiting from abroad, we always hit the range. It's pretty much the first thing they want to do when they get in.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: kb01
When I have family visiting from abroad, we always hit the range. It's pretty much the first thing they want to do when they get in.


If you drive there in a pick-up truck, you've hit the top two at once...

 

[kb01]

No pickup here. After shooting, it's always eat a big steak, and bowling.