|
I know. It seems ridiculous. I don't question Frank's cites of the law and they do point to possession as the relevant factor rather than ownership.
Yet, I have never heard of a single instance, nor could I imagine a person relinquishing ownership (or rights to possess) his/her own firearms merely because they were temporarily and lawfully stored at another location. It just can't be. Certainly the intent of the law cannot be to deprive someone of the rights to their lawfully owned property without due process.
|