|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 14, 2010, 09:28 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
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!
|
September 14, 2010, 09:45 AM | #27 |
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 |
September 14, 2010, 10:36 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 14, 2010, 10:43 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
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 craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
September 14, 2010, 11:54 AM | #30 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
September 14, 2010, 03:27 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
__________________
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 |
|
September 14, 2010, 04:32 PM | #32 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
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. |
|
September 14, 2010, 06:07 PM | #33 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
Infer is used in various contexts and my context is this: Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|||
September 14, 2010, 07:47 PM | #34 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
However, my main point was that violating the gun show rule didn't help his case at all. Quote:
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. |
||
September 15, 2010, 01:06 PM | #35 |
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.
|
September 15, 2010, 01:34 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|