Cal you sell your firearms to a trused friend or family member? Make them a very very good deal and perhaps you can buy them back someday.
Explain, pleasePsycho-82 said:I didnt have much of a choice as this is the very reason i was stripped of my stripes a little over a year ago!
I didn't make the rules, brother. If it is worth your military career to you to buck the system, then by all means go for it.Alot of what the Army does is wrong yet people still go with it. How will things ever change for the better if everyone else goes along with it?
Unfortunately, you just found out the hard way that they do.Military has authority over myself... not my residence nor my posessions.
Sounds like you might want to discuss this with JAG. One of the reasons I haven't joined the CF is because of how many rights I'd be signing away at my commanding officer's discretion. I doubt it's much different in the States.Psycho82 said:You claim i gave up my right to unreasonable search and seizure... if so then show me where i did such a thing, give me an extract to the reg that says this! Each time i say this no one can... please id love to see it if it exists!
This is just WRONG! If you have a restraining order, or any other thing that makes it illegeal for you to own or purchase a firearm, then they cannot even be in your residence, nor can they be in your hand (contructive possession). You cannot even have in your possession, nor within your residence, ammunition for them. Holding one, having one in your home, or having ammo for one is a federal offense, punishable by 5 years in federal prison with an 80% minimum to serve. The only way a trust helps, is you as the trustee get to say what happens to them, but you cannot possess or use them.With a living trust these weapon are not yours. You can be authorized to used the weapons because you are in charge of the trust.
Could you point me in the right direction to look this information up. I am very curious because I was told it would protect your weapons from seizure. Also, I looked up constructive possession and came up with this:docv_73 said:A couple of things here...
This is just WRONG! If you have a restraining order, or any other thing that makes it illegeal for you to own or purchase a firearm, then they cannot even be in your residence, nor can they be in your hand (contructive possession). You cannot even have in your possession, nor within your residence, ammunition for them. Holding one, having one in your home, or having ammo for one is a federal offense, punishable by 5 years in federal prison with an 80% minimum to serve. The only way a trust helps, is you as the trustee get to say what happens to them, but you cannot possess or use them."With a living trust these weapon are not yours. You can be authorized to used the weapons because you are in charge of the trust.
This is what i was talking about:lonewolf said:
HR 2640 NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4]
Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Timothy Bishop [D-NY1]
Frederick Boucher [D-VA9]
Lois Capps [D-CA23]
Michael Castle [R-DE]
John Dingell [D-MI15]
Rahm Emanuel [D-IL5]
Nita Lowey [D-NY18]
Dennis Moore [D-KS3]
James Moran [D-VA8]
William Pascrell [D-NJ8]
Mike Ross [D-AR4]
Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9]
Christopher Shays [R-CT4]
Brad Sherman [D-CA27]
Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20]
Introduced Jun 11, 2007
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Amendments (1 proposed)View Amendments
Passed House Jun 13, 2007
Passed Senate Dec 19, 2007
Signed by President Jan 8, 2008
This bill became law. It was signed by George Bush.
Jan 8, 2008: Became Public Law No: 110-180.
Jun 13, 2007:
This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote.
A record of each representative’s position was not kept. (Ron Paul vehemently voted against this bill)
Dec 19, 2007:
This bill passed in the Senate with changes by Unanimous Consent.
A record of each senator’s position was not kept.
Sources of Influence
MAPLight.org reports that the following organizations have taken a stance on this bill:
National Rifle Association (????????????????????????)
Gun Owners of America
John Birch Society
Section 105 -
Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility. Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.
SEC. 105. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM REQUIRED AS CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS.
(a) Program Described- A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program--
(1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;
(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person's record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest; and
(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.
(b) Authority To Provide Relief From Certain Disabilities With Respect to Firearms- If, under a State relief from disabilities program implemented in accordance with this section, an application for relief referred to in subsection (a)(1) of this section is granted with respect to an adjudication or a commitment to a mental institution or based upon a removal of a record under section 102(c)(1)(B), the adjudication or commitment, as the case may be, is deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.
section 922 of title 18, United States Code
(g)(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
This attorney may have knowledge of how to help your friend:
Letter of public record: WALTER A. MURRAY, JR.
Attorney at law
July 25, 2007
Senator John Barrasso
RE: HR 2640
Dear Senator Barrasso:
It is troublesome that I feel compelled to write this letter. Troublesome
because HR 2640, as I read it, will deny thousands of American combat
veterans the right to possess, own and carry a firearm. This bill strips
Americas finest of their rights under the Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
While at the Veterans Hospital at Ft. Meade a few weeks ago, I was
approached by five Vietnam Veterans who were waiting for their group session to start(PTSD). One of the Veterans knew I was an attorney and had been a judge in Wyoming. The question put to me was would they lose their Second Amendment Rights under HR 2640. It was lucky that I had read portions of this bill so I could give them a tentative answer. That answer was "You probably will loose your rights under the Second Amendment". Four of the five men had concealed weapons permits, three from South Dakota and one from Wyoming. The fifth gentlemen was an avid hunter and owned rifles. Concealed weapons permits issued by the State of Wyoming are done after an exhaustive Federal, State, and local records and back ground checks. I have been told that South Dakota goes through the same back ground checks as Wyoming.
I could go through HR 2640 in this letter in great detail, but I know you
have or will screen this bill with a fine tooth comb, so I will direct the
remainder of this letter to my 38 years dealing with people suffering from
PTSD and those not. As you know I have been a private attorney, part time court commissioner and part time Juvenile Court Referee in California. In Wyoming I have been a private attorney, a prosecutor, a County Court Judge, and a Senior Assistant Public Defender.
I have testified in court on the issue of a persons mental state. Due to the nature of my profession I have read much on dysfunctional psychology as well as observing this issue first hand. It has been my experience that those suffering from PTSD are no more likely to do harm to themselves or to others than a "normal" person. In fact, those suffering from PTSD and have sought help are less likely to do harm to themselves or others than "normal" folks.
This bill is a double blow to those with PTSD. The 83,000 veterans diagnosed with PTSD, never given due process, had their names added to the Brady Instant Check Data Base to prevent these veterans from buying guns. HR 2640 will by law prevent this class of people from buying, owning or possessing guns. More names of veterans will be added to this list with the billion dollars called for in the bill.
I would request that you consider the harm this bill will do to law abiding
citizens who have served their country and now suffer from PTSD. A no vote seems to be the only vote appropriate for this bill.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me.
Walter A. Murray, Jr.
Attorney At Law
January 8, 2008
Here is an easy link for the basics, which has aditional links to the BATF websitesCould you point me in the right direction to look this information up. I am very curious because I was told it would protect your weapons from seizure. Also, I looked up constructive possession and came up with this: