Quick Question on Discharging Weapons

wylde007 said:

Exactly as I posed above. And so I was correct, sort of.

Target shooting qualifies as a "lawful sporting purpose" does it not?

Click to expand...

Ding! Ding! Ding!

stay safe.

Is that a Futurama "motivational" poster?

Brilliant.

Thank you everyone for your responses and I apologize for any conflict my question may have raised.

The only reason I posted was because I could not find a sufficient answer in the search function to satisfy my question.

I also called around to a few local ranges who have been in business for awhile. They said that it is not an issue if you are on private property.

From the way I interpret the law, possession would be the carry (in public) or ownership of the firearm.

All of your responses have helped tremendously. Thanks!

Yes.

wylde007 said:

Exactly as I posed above. And so I was correct, sort of.

Target shooting qualifies as a "lawful sporting purpose" does it not?

Click to expand...

Yes, however the firearm can only be on loan.

I guess I should clarify. When I said you cannot possess I meant as in ownership. Sorry for the confusion.

simmonsjoe said:

Non Citizens and Firearms

Click to expand...

Hey Joe the cite you posted, I think they would covered since they will be on private property and the third bullet;
•It is on loan for a lawful sporting purpose.

Sorry posted this without reading the remainder of posts. Seems we all came to the same conclusion.

simmonsjoe said:

Yes, however the firearm can only be on loan.

I guess I should clarify. When I said you cannot possess I meant as in ownership. Sorry for the confusion.

Click to expand...

There we go, the keyword I felt was not being addressed was ownership.
So someone visiting that is not in violation of any law and is being escorted by a citizen also not breaking any law should then be allowed to discharge a firearm in accordance with local ordinance.
Would seem out of place to see any law that straight up said a non-citizen could not possess or discharge a firearm.

I haven't read all the responses, but I felt compelled to dispel a certain amount of hogwash.

As long as the guests are lawfully present in the U.S., there are no restrictions on their ownership, possession, or use of firearms, other than the usual stuff, not insane, of the age of majority, not felons, etc.

What?

user said:

I haven't read all the responses, but I felt compelled to dispel a certain amount of hogwash.

As long as the guests are lawfully present in the U.S., there are no restrictions on their ownership, possession, or use of firearms, other than the usual stuff, not insane, of the age of majority, not felons, etc.

Click to expand...

The ATF begs to differ with you.

Since you are a lawyer, please check my thread and it's accompanying citations for error. I don't want to tell people lies.
Law Library - Non-Citizens and Firearms

Thanks for your help

simmonsjoe said:

The ATF begs to differ with you.

Since you are a lawyer, please check my thread and it's accompanying citations for error. I don't want to tell people lies.
Law Library - Non-Citizens and Firearms

Thanks for your help

Click to expand...

Good job on the Law Library references, joe. I hope it's accurate.

Me Too...

2a4all said:

Good job on the Law Library references, joe. I hope it's accurate.

Click to expand...

I've already learned a bunch I didn't know just putting that together.

Thanks

At your suggestion, I checked the citations you listed, and I've come to the conclusion that the BATFE is exaggerating a bit. What they wrote in their FAQ goes way beyond what the law states. As a general thing and as a Constitutional matter, within a state, the United States has no authority over ownership, possession, or use of firearms. They have taken a bit of authority over these things but I think state law pre-empts federal law to the contrary. With respect to transfer of ownership across state lines, there's no question that federal law rules - that one's crystal clear, no ambiguity at all. 18 USC title 44 states in the "definitions" section that "interstate commerce" only relates to actual transfers of title or possession across state lines, and that limits the entire title. That's the only situation in which nonresident aliens lawfully in the U.S. are regulated.

That said, it turns out that I was, in fact, wrong, at least in part. Here's why:

Va. Code § 18.2-308.2:01. Possession or transportation of certain firearms by certain persons.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a citizen of the United States or who is not a person lawfully admitted for permanent residence to knowingly and intentionally possess or transport any assault firearm or to knowingly and intentionally carry about his person, hidden from common observation, an assault firearm.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully present in the United States to knowingly and intentionally possess or transport any firearm or to knowingly and intentionally carry about his person, hidden from common observation, any firearm. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony.

C. For purposes of this section, "assault firearm" means any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added).

So as a blanket statement, it was wrong for me to say they could use the guns without further qualification. Instead, I should have said that the guests lawfully in the U.S. can engage in a legitimate sporting purpose, in which they have the use of someone else's gun(s) in which the transfer of possession occurs entirely within one state and is merely a loan, not a transfer of title, and the guns involved are not "assault firearms". (Idiotic use of the phrase, if you ask me, because the "real" definition of an assault firearm is one that can be made to function in fully automatic mode.)

Assault Firearm-

Is defined at least

UK

Several years ago I had a guest from GB here at the local gun club. He had never fired a handgun so I brought several along for him to shoot. He may not be allowed in England, but we were in America, and it's legal for someone of his age to shoot handguns. He actually did quite well. END OF STORY!

wylde007 said:

Exactly as I posed above. And so I was correct, sort of.

Target shooting qualifies as a "lawful sporting purpose" does it not?

Click to expand...

Wylde is correct. Otherwise, how would the target ranges in Hawaii and Las Vegas be able to rent to Japanese tourists? Been to Hawaii and have personally seen the tourists flocking to these ranges, in downtown Honolulu no less.