Buying a gun in Oregon from private seller, 594 issue?

NavyLCDR said:

Real lawyers with law degrees who are actually practicing disagree with you:

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/



In the case of the word "includes" in 18 USC 921 and 922, the word "includes" is a word of enlargement and not of limitation, just as the courts have held in the past. By adding the sentence "The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)", Congress in no way intended to exclude the remainder of the 50 states; Congress intended to make it clear that Title 18, Chapter 44 applied to DC, Puerto Rico, and the possessions, IN ADDITION TO the remainder of the 50 states.

If we go with your utterly and completely foolish interpretation of includes, then in the other 50 states which are not D.C., Puerto Rico, or a possession of the U.S. there is no Federal prohibition of felons possessing firearms, there is no requirement for a NICS check and, in fact, there is no requirement for a dealer in firearms to have an FFL because in 27 CFR 478.11 we see this definition of state:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...2041e3b1cd51ef9b&node=se27.3.478_111&rgn=div8


Heck, let's apply your interpretation to ALL of the United States Code, shall we?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1


So, what you are trying to tell us is that the words above, when used throughout Federal Law are limited to the meanings after the word "include" or "includes" above. That makes you insane (see definition above).

And, according to you, this all moot anyway because Federal law would apply only to infants and not adults:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Click to expand...

“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”

Click to expand...

NavyLCDR said:

There's going to be a lot of people disappointed this Christmas when they open all the boxes that say "batteries included" on them and that's all they get.....batteries.

Click to expand...

END_THE_FED said:

Not saying this changes your point because it doesn't but "includes" in a definition also could mean other things not listed that are in the same general class as the things that are.

Click to expand...

Freedom1Man said:

Not when it comes to law. "Such as" is what you are thinking of. "Includes" and "Including" when used in law means limited to what is listed.

Click to expand...

Freedom1Man said:

Explain the citations I posted then.

Law is limited to what is listed. Period.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/07-2019/08a0248p-06-2011-02-25.html

http://losthorizons.com/Documents/Includes.pdf

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expressio+unius+est+exclusio+alterius
Share: Cite / link:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.


If your theory was correct then title 26 USC would never had had to re-define "United states" and "state".

That is why.

Click to expand...

Jared said:

OP,

If you find a firearm from someone in WA that you want to purchase. You both could circumvent I-594 but completing the sale in Oregon, Idaho or even 3.1 miles off the coast of WA.

Click to expand...

NavyLCDR said:

Unfortunately, that would still violate 18 USC 922 (a)(3):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922



18 USC 922 (a)(3) regulates the location of the sale, not the state of residency of the buyer/seller.

If you want to buy a gun without a background check you are going to have to violate a statute - not that I think there is anything wrong with that, but I do feel people should have accurate information to base their decision on and that is why I post these laws. That is also the evil nature of I-594; how many people would think if they were not told that it would violate the law if they are shooting with their family at a gravel pit and they let their kids or wife or husband borrow their guns to shoot there.

Click to expand...

Grim_Night said:

I think I see where you are going with this and your distance is a bit off. If you are implying the use of international waters as a location for personal sales of firearms then you are looking for 12 nautical miles from the coast. However, US law extends to international waters, ships sailing in international waters are under the jurisdiction of the state or nation to which the vessel is registered.

So... I wouldn't suggest that as an option. Unless the boat is registered in another country.

Click to expand...

Jared said:

I said 3 miles because that's how far WA state law extends into the Pacific.

As the other guy pointed out, it wouldn't be legal anyway due to 18 USC 922(a)(3).

Click to expand...

NavyLCDR said:

And Freedom1man will be along shortly to say it only applies in D.C., Puerto Rico and possessions of the U.S. excluding the Panama Canal zone.

Click to expand...

NavyLCDR said:

And Freedom1man will be along shortly to say it only applies in D.C., Puerto Rico and possessions of the U.S. excluding the Panama Canal zone.

Click to expand...

mikeyb said:

That was the point he was making? Oh vey. That's some serious asshattery. Because of people's lack of comprehension, that's why "but not limited to" is included into the phrasing of laws.

Click to expand...

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

Click to expand...

[h=4](10) State[/h]The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Click to expand...

mikeyb said:

Ahem...





The meaning is clear. "State," is the 50 states and DC. Believing otherwise is just being obtuse.

Oh look, someone found all the definitions of United States and States in the USC.
http://www.freedom-school.com/code-defines-united-states.pdf

Click to expand...

(4) United States
(A) In general

The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

Click to expand...

NavyLCDR said:

There is no sense continuing to argue with Freedom1Man. He has interpretation and 99% of other Americans will disagree with him.

Click to expand...