The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 14, 2010, 09:28 AM   #26
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,067
You're really arguing a losing battle here N7. Anyone with a shred of common sense would have denied the sell. It was an obvious straw purchase and GREED prompted the sell. They are going after this guy the same as they'd rather arrest a drug dealer instead of a user. They are making him an example to warn others to USE THEIR HEADS!
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old September 14, 2010, 09:45 AM   #27
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"So isn't the gun show at some fault here?
If their rules are that you need a FFL to sell guns, then WHY did this non-FFL have a table(setup) to sell at this gun show.

Why did they allow him there w/o a license? "

_________________

Some shows have stations set up, or arrangements made for someone with an FFL to be available, to run the background checks for the non-FFL sellers. I've seen them, I just haven't used one or paid attention to the details of the arrangements.

John
johnbt is offline  
Old September 14, 2010, 10:36 AM   #28
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,547
Two stupid things don't make one of them right.

Yep, the show manager should pick up that someone who repeatedly has a table for his 'collection' is funny business.

That's how shows get closed as attractive nuisances.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 14, 2010, 10:43 AM   #29
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: On The Road, somewhere in the good ol' US of A.
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
Yep, the show manager should pick up that someone who repeatedly has a table for his 'collection' is funny business.

That's how shows get closed as attractive nuisances.
Penny-wise and pound-foolish. The gun show promoter's greed in collecting the table fees from Copeland led to the show being kicked out of it's usual venue. Let's hope that it serves as a lesson to other gun show promoters who sell tables to serial "private collectors."
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old September 14, 2010, 11:54 AM   #30
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
So isn't the gun show at some fault here?
If their rules are that you need a FFL to sell guns, then WHY did this non-FFL have a table(setup) to sell at this gun show.

Why did they allow him there w/o a license?
As it was explained earlier, some gun shows use a central table for non-FFLs. However, in this case, the gun show promoter himself didn't know he was going to require all sales through FFLs until the Thursday before the show and he didn't notify his customers until they started showing up.

You can read more about that mess in these two posts:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=400762
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394104

Quote:
Penny-wise and pound-foolish. The gun show promoter's greed in collecting the table fees from Copeland led to the show being kicked out of it's usual venue.
As discussed in the above links, this happened at the now infamous Boedeker gun show. The previous tenant had been the Saxet Gun Show (who was also the tenant when ATF got interested in the place to begin with), so Boedeker had been there only 4 months when this happened and may not have been aware of Mr. Copeland's history.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 14, 2010, 03:27 PM   #31
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,457
Quote:
If the jury learns that Mr. Copeland was required by the rules of the gunshow to make his sale through an FFL; but that he violated that rule, they might infer that Mr. Copeland knew he was making an illegal sale.
The law is not based upon inference. The law is based on the deed and the intent through means, motive, and opportunity.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old September 14, 2010, 04:32 PM   #32
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
The law is not based upon inference. The law is based on the deed and the intent through means, motive, and opportunity.
Exactly how do you establish intent if not by inference? Mind-reading helmet? Only convict where the defendant clearly states that it was his intent to do the illegal act?

From his deeds, the jury may infer that Mr. Copeland acted knowingly (<- intent). To put it another way, Mr. Copeland's deed of avoiding the show's rule that all sales go through an FFL, may cause some jurors to determine that his motive/intent was to complete the illegal sale and not do anything that would have sidetracked it.

I don't understand what your point was is attempting to make the distinction you stated.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 14, 2010, 06:07 PM   #33
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,457
Quote:
Exactly how do you establish intent if not by inference?
A matter of usage, unfortunately.

Infer is used in various contexts and my context is this:

Quote:
in·fer
   /ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.

–verb (used without object)
5.
to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
While you apparently were using it as such:

Quote:
in·fer
   /ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.

3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
I simply don't think a jury should be guessing at the intent of the accused without hard evidence to back it up. I don't believe that the rule the gun show imposed does that. The sale was legal to do regardless of the gun show rule. What made it illegal was the immigration status of the person who instigated the sale and who now walks free.

If they are going to go after the seller they should ALSO go after the straw purchaser. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of the law. All parties to the crime should be prosecuted, not those who are merely selected for prosecution.

Perhaps once it happens to you or someone you know you will agree with the preceding paragraph.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old September 14, 2010, 07:47 PM   #34
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
The sale was legal to do regardless of the gun show rule.
If Mr. Copeland was a private seller selling out of his own collection it was legal. If he was engaged in the business of selling firearms without a license, then it was not legal.

However, my main point was that violating the gun show rule didn't help his case at all.

Quote:
All parties to the crime should be prosecuted, not those who are merely selected for prosecution.
Realistically, prosecutors have to make deals with criminals in order to secure convictions some times. That is an aspect that has been a part of pretty much every legal system men have developed.

I am curious why Mr. Huerta wasn't prosecuted in this case. It doesn't appear his testimony was necessary to this case since an undercover ATF agent witnessed the whole transaction and he gave his testimony to ATF agents voluntarily before any indictment or arrest was made. On the flip side though, I would prefer prosecutors exercise their discretion and pursue violent criminals rather than ruthlessly prosecute every person who runs afoul of our plethora of laws. Not knowing the facts that led to the decision, I can't really give an informed opinion of whether I'd have agreed with the prosecutor's decision here.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 15, 2010, 01:06 PM   #35
EricReynolds
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2008
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 393
I wasn't following at first, but I think I got the gist of the scenario now. It's crazy though when you think of how many straw purchases take place in which it's impossible for a dealer to have a suspicion the purchaser intends to buy the weapon for someone else. What if the actual buyer never enters the shop and sends in a buddy to make the purchase for him? Who's at fault there? The purchaser obviously, as the dealer would have no reasonable way of knowing. It's this way that most illegal guns make it on to the street, not from burglaries. This is the only real argument in favor of registration. I don't want to open that can of worms and talk about why it's wrong, I just want to show why it would work as far as straw purchases go. In NY, where you need a permit and they do register guns, if you make a straw purchase for someone who does not have a permit, and that person is caught with that gun, it will trace back to the permit holder. A cousin in GA could easily buy a gun for someone to bring back to NY. Back to the scenario in this thread, even i the dealer knew what was up, (which is stupid) I think the purchaser is at least equally guilty. The dealer could always plead ignorance that he really didn't understand what was going on, but the purchaser can't. The whole thing is ridiculous.
EricReynolds is offline  
Old September 15, 2010, 01:34 PM   #36
divil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 401
Quote:
What made it illegal was the immigration status of the person who instigated the sale and who now walks free.
Not true. It's a subtle but important point that keeps getting overlooked: it is the alleged knowledge of the seller, or the fact that he had sufficient reason to believe that the alien was illegal, that makes the sale illegal (for the seller).

I keep seeing the question of whether the seller "knew it was an illegal sale" - the fact is that it's only an illegal act for him if he knows or has reasonable cause to believe (whatever that means) that the recipient is disqualified. If he is justifiably ignorant of the immigration status of the recipient then he is innocent on that particular count. It is irrelevant whether or not he knew or suspected that the gun might be transferred to someone else.
divil is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09130 seconds with 9 queries