View Single Post
Old April 16, 2013, 10:28 AM   #124
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
@Z
If they were stopped from an FFL, and we expanded the FFL system to nearly everyone, it would be... Itopping them.
Your second premise does not work. Simply passing a criminal prohibition cannot put "nearly" everyone through that system.

If criminal prohibition were the remedy, we already would not have a problem of prohibited persons with firearms, correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
Quote:
Second, the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is already illegal.
Yes, pay attention to the 3rd specific charge... illegal purchase... that's different than illegal possession...
Your extra charge did not escape my attention.

It really is not different. Where ever you find a prohibited person illegally possessing a firearm, you already have a charge. The manner by which he came by the item will already have been a crime.

What you would like to add to this formula is criminal liability for the seller, effectively drafting other individuals into the task of enforcing state prohibitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
I've documented that 120k plus cases of stopping people had occured in that 2 year period, but you're saying it didn't stop anything?
It would be easy to determine what I have written by scrolling up and reading it. I did not write that "it didn't stop anything"; I wrote that it denied an FFL transfer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
How does one document that a crime which never occured was prevented? You can't prove a negative.
Indeed, that is a significant problem with the argument for your proposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
The burden is minimal. I've done this 4473 so many times, I walk in and out within 20 minutes, every single time. That's nothing compared to a lifetime of gun ownership with that particular weapon.
That you consider a purchase from an FFL minimal does not bind anyone else to the same conclusion.

As a practical matter and under your proposal, if I, an unlicensed individual, would like to purchase an item from an individual across the street from me, do I now have to participate in a three party transaction at somewhere other than one of our homes?

What if I would like to purchase from someone 200 miles away from me, but I am delayed, not denied. Do I now have to make that trip twice?
zukiphile is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04910 seconds with 7 queries