Subj : Re: Um...no comment?
To   : Deuce
From : Angus McLeod
Date : Thu Sep 15 2005 08:41 pm

  Re: Re: Um...no comment?
  By: Deuce to Angus McLeod on Thu Sep 15 2005 10:44:00

 >  > Perhaps I should use smaller words From the instant of their death, their
 >  > assets are no longer their assets.  They have become the assets of their
 >  > heirs, who are free to make such decisions as they see fit.
 > 
 > Actually, the assets are held in trust until the executor doles them out...
 > after ensuring all debts are paid etc.  If it worked as you say, the police
 > could arrest and convict me heirs of posession of a firearm upon my death (n
 > of them hold a firearms certificate).

There may be a period during which the assets are held in trust, which is 
what you would expect.  But the assets don't actually become the property 
of the executor for that period.  Thet are in fact the property of the 
heirs.

As for the firearm, note that I do not (any longer) hold any firearms 
certificates.  However, I can *own* as many fire arms as I like, and if 
anyone chooses to leave me one in a will, I would be in no danger of 
arrest.  There is no law against *owning* a firearm without a certificate 
(at least not in this country), and I know many persons who do own 
unlicensed firearms.  There is a law against *possessing* a firearm 
without a license.  That is why many unlicensed sporting shooters leave 
their sporting arms in the hands of a licensed gun dealer or in the armory 
of a nearby police station, from which they are retrieved (by a licensed 
firearms dealer) prior to sporting shoots.

 > I'm not aware of any country in which the heirs are immediatly owners of the
 > deceaseds assets.  I can't help but assume that any such country would also
 > need to place the liabilities upon the heirs at the same time.

I suppose it matters how you define 'own'.  


---
 þ Synchronet þ Generated automatically on The ANJO BBS

.