taking foreign visitors to the range

[milktree]

Help me with 18 U.S.C. 922 (g) (5) (b):

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(5) who, being an alien
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States
under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

to ... possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definit...rm_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:44:section:922

8 U.S.C 101(a)(26) says:

(26)
The term “nonimmigrant visa” means a visa properly issued to an alien as an eligible nonimmigrant by a competent officer as provided in this chapter.

So, does this mean it's illegal to take a visitor on a tourist visa to the range?

If not, does that mean it's legal to take a PP (for some other thing, like a felony) to the range?

(g)(1) is "convicted in a court of..."
(g)(2) is "fugitive from justice"
...
(g)(5) is "...being an alien"

Is this just a case where the .gov comes down really hard on the other sections, but nobody cares about 5?

 

[fencer]

Not trying to be a smart ass, but what range are you taking people to that checks immigration status?

However, the way I read it, the operative phrase is to ... "possess in or affecting commerce". For example if you are a truck driver from Canada or Mexico... no gunz.
I know a few vacationing Canadians that have rented machine guns in Vegas and were required to show ID.

 

[milktree]

Not trying to be a smart ass, but what range are you taking people to that checks immigration status?

However, the way I read it, the operative phrase is to ... "possess in or affecting commerce". For example if you are a truck driver from Canada or Mexico... no gunz.
I know a few vacationing Canadians that have rented machine guns in Vegas and were required to show ID.

I'm not asking about the *practical* applications. Private ranges never ask for ID of guests, and many public ones don't either, and I've heard of enough tourists going to shooting ranges to believe that 922(g)(5)(b) isn't enforced. (at least not enough for anyone to notice)

I'm curious about the black letter meaning of the law.

If it's legal to take someone on a tourist visa to the range, then therefore it should be legal to take any other prohibited person to the range, since they're in the same section.

I keep reading about people with PP status not being able to even *touch* a gun, but clearly that's not enforced in the case of tourists.

 

[fencer]

Ah, I see, and it brings up a valid point.

I have also read that PP are not even supposed to handle firearms, and for me it has only come up once when my POS BIL asked me to take him shooting. I don't like the guy anyway, so I would not have taken him even if he was not a PP POS, but it made for a nice argument when my wife asked me "why not?" because " I wouldn't trust him with a potato gun" was sure to create an argument of it's own.

I would have a real hard time assessing the risks, aside from the letter of the law. It would be unlikely that it ever came to light that a shooter/ guest was a PP unless there was an incident that drew scrutiny. ie: The gun blows up and they require medical attention, or heaven forbid, a ND or accidental shooting. These types of things are pretty rare. But not so rare that YouTube isn't full of videos that show examples of them.

 

[AHM]

Help me with 18 U.S.C. 922 (g) (5) (b):

The ATF is part of the Government, and they're here to help:

May a nonimmigrant alien who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa possess a firearm or ammunition in the United States?​

Note that under subsection (y)(2) exception (B), subsection (g)(5)(B) doesn't apply to an alien who is admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States.

GCA68 "Sporting purposes" allegedly excludes plinking and practical shooting from organized competitive target shooting, as being closer to police/combat-style competition and not comparable to more traditional types of sports. If I was worried about making a visitor alien a non-FPP, I would have them list more than "purpose of visit: pleasure" on their visa application.

Note also that citizens of over three dozen countries don't need non-immigrant visas to enter the US,
and the prohibitions do not apply to nonimmigrant aliens who lawfully entered the United States without a visa.

However, the way I read it, the operative phrase is to ... "possess in or affecting commerce". For example if you are a truck driver from Canada or Mexico... no gunz.
I know a few vacationing Canadians that have rented machine guns in Vegas and were required to show ID.

That's a Very Fake Legal definition of "commerce". The US District Court of Massachusetts Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for 4.18.922(g) Possession of a Firearm or Ammunition in or Affecting Commerce by a Convicted Felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) define that crime as...

[Defendant] is charged with possessing [a firearm; ammunition] in or affecting commerce after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. It is against federal law for a convicted felon to possess [a firearm; ammunition] that was connected with interstate [or foreign] commerce. For you to find [defendant] guilty of this crime, you must be satisfied that the government has proven each of the following things beyond a reasonable doubt:​

...and define "[connection with] interstate [or foreign] commerce" as...

Third, that the firearm was connected with interstate [or foreign] commerce. This means that the [firearm; ammunition], at any time after it was manufactured, moved from one state to another [or from a foreign country into the United States]. The travel need not have been connected to the charge in the indictment and need not have been in furtherance of any unlawful activity.
​

...and this has been true at least in the First Circuit (New England) for over two decades...

Comment(s)
...
(5) United States v. Acosta, 67 F.3d 334, 340 (1st Cir. 1995), supports the broad definition of "commerce." See also United States v. Joost, 133 F.3d 125, 131 (1st Cir. 1998).​

(Bolding mine).