Difdi
Regular Member
What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.
Mere possession? No violation. I-594 only criminalizes transfers without background checks. But you're incorrect about no transfers occurring. Under the definition of transfer found in I-594, a transfer occurs when possession changes, not just ownership. Courts have ruled in the past that access can equal possession. Everyone who has keys to any display case containing a firearm probably has possession. When the keys change hands, so does possession. Every time a transfer occurs, there must be a background check or it's a gross misdemeanor the first time and felonies every time after that.
Every employee of the museum, from the director down to every janitor must pass a background check to be able to have access to the guns every time they gain or lose access, not just once upon being hired. Anyone employed by the museum who wouldn't be able to pass such a background check would have to lose their job or go to jail.
If a display case is accidentally broken, everyone in the room potentially has possession dropped on them. Whether they want it or not. And don't forget, it's not just the person 'giving' the gun who breaks the law, but also the person receiving the transfer.
Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
Since I-594 redefines a transfer from change of ownership of a firearm to change of possession or ownership of a firearm, the museum would be unable to return the displayed guns to their owners after I-594 takes effect without the owners passing a background check. If they failed to pass the check for any reason (including clerical error) the museum would have to effectively steal the guns from the owners or outright purchase them (with the owners unable to refuse) -- the former is a class B felony, the latter would require that the museum pass a background check. How exactly you would have a business pass such a check is problematic, and the logical solution brings us back to everyone in the organization having to pass a background check or lose their job.
Since either one of those situations would discourage anyone from loaning anything to the museum in the future, the museum is taking steps to prevent the situations from arising. And the public loses in the end because we lose a museum exhibit six months ahead of schedule.
Last edited: