LPC wrote:But that's not what you *wrote*.
What you wrote is that "A great many of those are strict liability crimes where the offense isn't really doing anything..."
Which lead me to believe that you thought that there were "strict liability crimes" for which someone could be found guilty without actually doing anything.
One could be forgiven at this point for just thinking you're trying to be argumentative. But i'll indulge. And, to be fair, what I wrote was aimed at this audience, which usually consists of persons who are very legally versed and for whom what I wrote would be understood (as strict liability crimes do exist and aren't something which I made up for a post on quatloos).
But, actually, what I wrote was different. You're having to splice through the middle of my sentence to get it to read like that, in fact. What I wrote was "A great many of those are strict liability crimes where the offense isn't really doing anything, or having any mental state, but rather owning a firearm or weapon of a variety that isn't allowed by some governmental entity, or not having the appropriate papers for it (arguably all dubious bases for criminalization under the Second Amendment, but your mileage may vary). "
Again, it could be written better. But, the concept that phrases separated by commas should be read in the disjunctive isn't really all that new. But regardless, you've had the concept explained to you now, been given a wikipedia link, so what's your beef exactly?
LPC wrote:If what you said was wrong, and there is no such "strict liability crime," that's fine. But you seem to be accusing me of "combining a couple of concepts" when all I was doing was responding to what you yourself had written.
There is such a thing as a strict liability crime. Once again, look at the link I provided or google it for yourself. Better yet, go to law school. You don't have to take my word for it.
LPC wrote:All of which is, to coin a phrase, "bovine flatulence" that has very little to do with what you wrote and what I responded to.
Schaeffer Cox was convicted of a boatload of crimes which are either strict liability (no mens rea) or which are perilously close to that. If you had bothered to read the article I linked you would understand that having serious offenses of a strict liability nature is not a good thing for a free society.
LPC wrote:Prove it. Provide evidence of a statute that makes it a crime for me to own a weapon that is located in Spain.
I never said that it is a crime to own a weapon that is located in Spain.
LPC wrote:Bovine, Flatulating: wrote:In my state, the wrong combination of where you have the gun,
That's my point exactly. "Where you own the gun" is "possession" and not "ownership."Bovine, Flatulating: wrote:LPC wrote:Third (and perhaps most important), the possession of something is "doing something." Unless you were born with a gun duck-taped to your hands, if you "possess" a gun then you bought it, picked it up, didn't put it down, or did *something* to acquire or maintain possession of that gun. Mere possession is therefore the "doing something" that is the "actus rea."
I'll leave "mens rea" and other issues to others.
If it is, there should still be a requirement that there be a mens rea. For example, if one is driving a car where a passenger left contraband, one may have possession of it, but unless that is "knowing" or greater mens rea, there is no criminal mindset and in my idea of a just legal system, should be no statute which would criminalize that.
So you're saying that there are people who have been convicted of crimes because automatic weapons were discovered in the glove box of their car and they have no idea how they got there?
If not, then what the hell are you talking about?
First of all, no one said that strict liability crimes always have to do with automatic weapons. It could be a revolver. It could be a locked compartment in your vehicle, being transported 5 miles from one location where it is legal to have (office) to another where it is legal to have(home). If you're not familiar with such laws, then you're just showing your ignorance.
LPC wrote:Bovine, Flatulating: wrote:Nothing I'm saying here other than my own editorializing and statements of preference are anything which I think any legally trained person would disagree with. I'm not engaging in any crazy theorizing here, rather, this is stuff right out of my criminal law courses in law school way back when.
Right. There are lots of criminal law courses that talk about the problems of people convicted of having automatic weapons in the glove boxes of their cars that they have no idea how they got there.
I realize you think you're being witty or snarky but you're just being foolish. If you actually went to law school, instead of trying to debate the existence of a type of law with someone who actually has, you would probably take a course in criminal law and in criminal procedure. You would likely end up discussing these very things. (Though again, you demonstrate being needlessly argumentative and clueless by trying to characterize all strict liability crimes as involving automatic weapons).
There are many a criminal trial where the issue of whether the person who had possession of an item had the requisite mens rea for conviction (usually "knowing" for a possession type of charge) and that is the way it should be; in a strict liability context, you have possession and that is all that has to be proven, no intent, no act towards the furtherance of anything that would historically be considered a crime, nothing, nada zilch. Instant criminal. If you didn't live in a bubble, you'd probably realize that it has happened to a few people you know.