Gun Legislation

[Ombudsman]

Which part do you need me to explain to you again? I'm growing tired of holding your hand but I'll try once more.

[Mad American]

A tragic mistake but no criminal intent. Fortunately for you, one can not be arrested for stupid.

Like leaving your kid to roast in the car? No criminal intent, they didn't think it was that hot, nor that the kid would die, but there will still be charges. Please explain why gun accidents get to use the "oops" defense successfully and other accidents don't. Explain further why shooting your kid while cleaning your shotgun wouldn't be considered negligence instead of just "a tragic mistake" when every gun instructor ever starts with "make sure it's not loaded...treat it like it is...don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot..."

I did not say that it can't be considered negligence. I said it was a tragic mistake but no criminal intent. I agree, there should be some type of negligence charge for the EXACT reason you mentioned. Like I said earlier the FIRST rule is to make SURE the gun is unloaded. It does make me wonder about something else though...what happened to the guy in Saluda that let his 2 year old fall out of the dump truck under the wheels as he was driving? Did he get charged with a crime, I can't remember?

[Mad American]

Which part do you need me to explain to you again? I'm growing tired of holding your hand but I'll try once more.

Yep...the latter but since you asked, you can start with trying to explain how an illegal straw purchase is actually not illegal in your mind. That should make for great entertainment.

[O Really]

Hey fuzz nut...straw purchases (purchases made for the sole intent of transferring the gun to another owner) are illegal. So the guns were NOT obtained legally! I'd suggest at least knowing what you are talking about before you make a bigger "dumb ass" of yourself!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What you say is technically correct, but is nowhere near the whole story. A "straw purchase" does involve intent to purchase a gun for someone else, who will be the actual owner or "purchaser." On the other hand, there's no law to keep someone from buying a gun one day and selling it off to someone else the next. So depending on individual circumstance, the buyer is indeed buying the gun legally and then selling it off. Try proving that it was a "straw" even if you know it is.

(From the article linked, below...)

A `tough law to charge'
There is no federal law against buying a gun from a dealer one day and then selling it secondhand the next. It is only illegal when the nominal buyer never intends to own the gun and acts purely as a front. The federal form that gun purchasers must complete requires them to certify that they are the "actual buyer" of the weapon.

"It's a really tough law to charge," said one veteran ATF agent and field supervisor, who asked not to be identified. "Basically, you have to catch somebody in the act. You see them in the gun store, see them buy the gun and then go out to the car and give it to someone else."

"Basically, short of a confession, you won't be able to prove that case," said Mike Smith, supervisor of the gang prosecution unit in the Cook County state's attorney's office.

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=319

[Ombudsman]

Nice one, O Really, great description of the nuance involved. As the article at issue clearly states:

Federal case outlines how guns made their way from Indiana to Chicago: Gang member got weapons from college student who went on shopping sprees across state line, investigators say

These were re-sales, no straw purchaser involved.

In other words, ALL of Mad American's:

...idiot on the subject...your ignorance...idiot...fuzz nut...I'd suggest at least knowing what you are talking about before you make a bigger "dumb ass" of yourself!...I'd suggest learning a bit about federal gun law...educate yourself on gun law before continuing in order to avoid further egg on your face...entertaining....piss ants are better educated than you. Please continue to prove your stupidity...ignorance...dipshit...ignorance of federal gun law...ignorant dumbass that can't discuss the topic at hand...great entertainment...

directed at Ombudsman over 3 pages was REALLY just an accurate description of Mad American, either ignorant of the law, ignorant about the facts of these purchases, or just perpetually confused about any topic.

One thing we can be sure of - Mad American will never have the spine to retract his personal attacks nor apologize. More insight into why he thinks he needs guns.

Cut him a little slack. He is an imbecile after all. He can't help it.

[O Really]

It does make me wonder about something else though...what happened to the guy in Saluda that let his 2 year old fall out of the dump truck under the wheels as he was driving? Did he get charged with a crime, I can't remember?

A cursory search did not show any charges, but I don't really know. But the driver was in violation of the law requiring restraints for kids and as a result of that violation the kid was killed. My guess is that because of the personal tragedy to him, the cops gave him a break. Selective sympathy - happens all the time.

[Mad American]

Cut him a little slack. He is an imbecile after all. He can't help it.

So says the little feist dog that runs out yapping after the big dogs have scared away the coyote....LOL Crawl back under the porch idiot...you have already proven your ignorance. Nice job of riding o'really's coat tails though.

[Mad American]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What you say is technically correct, but is nowhere near the whole story. A "straw purchase" does involve intent to purchase a gun for someone else, who will be the actual owner or "purchaser." On the other hand, there's no law to keep someone from buying a gun one day and selling it off to someone else the next. So depending on individual circumstance, the buyer is indeed buying the gun legally and then selling it off. Try proving that it was a "straw" even if you know it is.

(From the article linked, below...)

A `tough law to charge'
There is no federal law against buying a gun from a dealer one day and then selling it secondhand the next. It is only illegal when the nominal buyer never intends to own the gun and acts purely as a front. The federal form that gun purchasers must complete requires them to certify that they are the "actual buyer" of the weapon.

"It's a really tough law to charge," said one veteran ATF agent and field supervisor, who asked not to be identified. "Basically, you have to catch somebody in the act. You see them in the gun store, see them buy the gun and then go out to the car and give it to someone else."

"Basically, short of a confession, you won't be able to prove that case," said Mike Smith, supervisor of the gang prosecution unit in the Cook County state's attorney's office.

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=319

Very good! However, just because it is difficult to charge does not mean the the purchases are not illegal. Form 4473 plainly states that misrepresentation of any information given on the form is a felony. This "buyer" did not walk into a store buy a gun and decide tomorrow to sell it. He went with the intention of purchasing the guns to transfer to others and WILLFULLY misrepresented the information on the 4473 and by doing that committed a felony...(umm that is ILLEGAL)

Just dawned on me that is one of the problems you liberals have.....you just can't seem to figure out the difference between legal and illegal.

[O Really]

Meanwhile:

Father cleaning shotgun shoots 10-year-old son in the head in N.C.

First rule of gun handling...be CERTAIN the gun is unloaded until actually intending to fire. That means check, re-check, and then check again. A tragic mistake but no criminal intent. Fortunately for you, one can not be arrested for stupid.

Consider: a generic (not state-specific, but still mostly applicable) description of the hree elements that must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

In this case, element 1 is obvious. With regard to element 2, every gun expert in the country will say it is inherently dangerous to clean a loaded firearm, or to point one in the general direction of a child. With regard to element 3, the shooter has either been to training or he hasn't. If he has, he would have been told over and over about the fundamental safe handling rules; if he hasn't, he knew or should have known handling firearms around children, without having taken training, would constitute a threat to their safety.

Without getting off on cars, or "law abiding citizens" or Second Amendment tangents, take the facts of the incident, compare them to the required elements, and explain why that person as well as those who commit similar acts under similar circumstances, should not be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

[Mad American]

Mad American still can't get it. Purchasing for another is indeed illegal. Purchase with the intent to sell to some as yet unknown other (like every gun store or gun trader does) is not, and that's what Ombudsman's article CLEARLY stated happened.

Maybe an example will help him out:

Mad American has 3 AR-15s and doesn't need or want another one.
Mad American comes across a functional AR-15 being sold for a ridiculously low price.
Mad American, shrewd business man that he is, buys it and immediately sells it to an acquaintance for 100% profit.
Mad American has not broken the law.

As vrede's article CLEARLY states (and prove him a liar) the situation he posted above is NOT what happened. From the article:

As he sold four handguns in a South Side parking lot last year, Levaine Tanksley boasted to his customer that there were plenty more illicit weapons available, investigators say.

"Twenty-five more in four hours," Tanksley told his customer, who was secretly working for law enforcement and recording the conversation. "Give me $5,000 and you can put your order in then. I'll get you whatever, give me a list."

A federal indictment charges the two with illegally selling 43 firearms to the government informant in just under 26 hours,

So please vrede explain for the class how this "CLEARLY" shows the purchases were made "with the intent to sell to some as yet unknown other (like every gun store or gun trader does)"

This should be good!!!!

[Crock Hunter]

However, just because it is difficult to charge does not mean the the purchases are not illegal. Form 4473 plainly states that misrepresentation of any information given on the form is a felony. This "buyer" did not walk into a store buy a gun and decide tomorrow to sell it. He went with the intention of purchasing the guns to transfer to others and WILLFULLY misrepresented the information on the 4473 and by doing that committed a felony...(umm that is ILLEGAL)

Just dawned on me that is one of the problems you liberals have.....you just can't seem to figure out the difference between legal and illegal.

Form 4473 isn't required for private sale... ..

Q: Does an unlicensed person need an ATF Form 4473 to transfer a firearm?

No. ATF Form 4473 is required only for transfers by a licensee.

[27 CFR 478.124]


"As Tanksley, who police say has ties to a Chicago street gang, made his sales pitch, David Lewisbey was stocking up on more weapons at a gun show 40 miles away in Crown Point, Ind., one of several trips he made across the state border and back in little more than a day, according to federal authorities. ".

Let's add "no attention to details" to your list of deficits.. . .

[O Really]

Let's add "no attention to details" to your list of deficits.. . .

It's hard to see out the sides of a tunnel.

[O Really]

Just dawned on me that is one of the problems you liberals have.....you just can't seem to figure out the difference between legal and illegal.

The issue isn't whether straw purchases are illegal. Nobody says they aren't. This issue is whether a specific purchase is, or can be proved to be, a straw purchase. The ATF seems to think that people are buying guns technically legally and selling them off for illegal use or to people not otherwise eligible to own them. And that this process contributes to a lot of illegal guns in Chicago. You disagree. Fine. I'll go with the ATF this time.

[Mad American]

However, just because it is difficult to charge does not mean the the purchases are not illegal. Form 4473 plainly states that misrepresentation of any information given on the form is a felony. This "buyer" did not walk into a store buy a gun and decide tomorrow to sell it. He went with the intention of purchasing the guns to transfer to others and WILLFULLY misrepresented the information on the 4473 and by doing that committed a felony...(umm that is ILLEGAL)

Just dawned on me that is one of the problems you liberals have.....you just can't seem to figure out the difference between legal and illegal.

Form 4473 isn't required for private sale... ..

Q: Does an unlicensed person need an ATF Form 4473 to transfer a firearm?

No. ATF Form 4473 is required only for transfers by a licensee.

[27 CFR 478.124]


"As Tanksley, who police say has ties to a Chicago street gang, made his sales pitch, David Lewisbey was stocking up on more weapons at a gun show 40 miles away in Crown Point, Ind., one of several trips he made across the state border and back in little more than a day, according to federal authorities. ".

Let's add "no attention to details" to your list of deficits.. . .

Lets see what is the problem here...oh yeah:

A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a United States government form that must be filled out when a person purchases a firearm from Federal Firearm License holder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

In other words all FFL dealers are REQUIRED BY LAW to fill out a 4473 for each sale regardless of location (yes even at gun shows) Ooops, you have fallen victim to another liberal lie and proven your ignorance on the subject as well. However, the purchases could have been made from private sellers but based on the volume of guns...I doubt it

[Mad American]

So illiterate. Yes the purchase of guns with someone else's $5K would be a straw purchase, but the article does not say that's what happened.

Just as I thought run away from the question...especially when you have been proven a liar. Lets go through this one more time so people can see how big of a fool you are:

As vrede's article CLEARLY states (and prove him a liar) the situation he posted above is NOT what happened. From the article:

As he sold four handguns in a South Side parking lot last year, Levaine Tanksley boasted to his customer that there were plenty more illicit weapons available, investigators say.

"Twenty-five more in four hours," Tanksley told his customer, who was secretly working for law enforcement and recording the conversation. "Give me $5,000 and you can put your order in then. I'll get you whatever, give me a list."

A federal indictment charges the two with illegally selling 43 firearms to the government informant in just under 26 hours,

So please vrede explain for the class how this "CLEARLY" shows the purchases were made "with the intent to sell to some as yet unknown other (like every gun store or gun trader does)"

This should be good!!!!

And you have the audacity to claim I am the one that is illiterate

[Crock Hunter]

In other words all FFL dealers are REQUIRED BY LAW to fill out a 4473 for each sale regardless of location (yes even at gun shows)

What lie.,.. Good grief... I just told you that ... .

However, the purchases could have been made from private sellers but based on the volume of guns...I doubt it

So your thought is that gun runners would willfully involve the government (Form 4473) in their scheme.. sure..

[Mad American]

In other words all FFL dealers are REQUIRED BY LAW to fill out a 4473 for each sale regardless of location (yes even at gun shows)

What lie.,.. Good grief... I just told you that ... .

Not exactly. You tried to make an inaccurate point about the "gun show loophole" which in fact does not exist

However, the purchases could have been made from private sellers but based on the volume of guns...I doubt it

So your thought is that gun runners would willfully involve the government (Form 4473) in their scheme.. sure..

I say based on the volume of guns being moved, yes, licensed dealers and 4473 were involved. However, that is of little consequence if the information given is falsified.

[Mad American]

Yep, still dodging that charges for straw purchases are never mentioned in the article.....

Yep still dodging your lie:

Mad American still can't get it. Purchasing for another is indeed illegal. Purchase with the intent to sell to some as yet unknown other (like every gun store or gun trader does) is not, and that's what Ombudsman's article CLEARLY stated happened.

As vrede's article CLEARLY states (and prove him a liar) the situation he posted above is NOT what happened. From the article:

As he sold four handguns in a South Side parking lot last year, Levaine Tanksley boasted to his customer that there were plenty more illicit weapons available, investigators say.

"Twenty-five more in four hours," Tanksley told his customer, who was secretly working for law enforcement and recording the conversation. "Give me $5,000 and you can put your order in then. I'll get you whatever, give me a list."

A federal indictment charges the two with illegally selling 43 firearms to the government informant in just under 26 hours,

So, please vrede explain for the class how this "CLEARLY" shows the purchases were made "with the intent to sell to some as yet unknown other (like every gun store or gun trader does)"

Still waiting on you to back up your claim but you are doing a fine impression of a pretzel trying to twist your way out of it

[Mad American]

Give it up vrede....everyone here and following this thread knows that you are a liar and this time you stuck you foot so far down your throat it should show up in your next BM. Just to re-emphasize that point one more time:

Mad American still can't get it. Purchasing for another is indeed illegal. Purchase with the intent to sell to some as yet unknown other (like every gun store or gun trader does) is not, and that's what Ombudsman's article CLEARLY stated happened.

Maybe an example will help him out:

Mad American has 3 AR-15s and doesn't need or want another one.
Mad American comes across a functional AR-15 being sold for a ridiculously low price.
Mad American, shrewd business man that he is, buys it and immediately sells it to an acquaintance for 100% profit.
Mad American has not broken the law.

As vrede's article CLEARLY states (and prove him a liar) the situation he posted above is NOT what happened. From the article:

As he sold four handguns in a South Side parking lot last year, Levaine Tanksley boasted to his customer that there were plenty more illicit weapons available, investigators say.

"Twenty-five more in four hours," Tanksley told his customer, who was secretly working for law enforcement and recording the conversation. "Give me $5,000 and you can put your order in then. I'll get you whatever, give me a list."

A federal indictment charges the two with illegally selling 43 firearms to the government informant in just under 26 hours,

So please vrede explain for the class how this "CLEARLY" shows the purchases were made "with the intent to sell to some as yet unknown other (like every gun store or gun trader does)"

This should be good!!!!

It's ok vrede...we all know better than to think you will EVER man up and admit your lies and stupidity!

Out!

[Stinger]

From Brown University, via PolitiFact:

PolitiFact Georgia also found a 2011 study conducted by Brown University economist Brian Knight that explored the state-to-state flow of illegal firearms in the country and examined the role of state gun regulations. That study, also based on ATF crime gun data, found that guns flow from states with less restrictive gun laws into states with restrictive laws. For example, the report found that the largest firearm suppliers to New York are Florida, Georgia and Virginia.

PoitiFact

And they do that by buying guns legally in Florida, transport them up Iron Pipeline (I-95, renamed for the gun trafficking on the road), and selling them on the streets of New York. The guns are purchased in quantity, legally, and transported to New York for resale to anyone with the cash. No background checks needed. Straw man? Maybe not technically.

And check out Armslist, a Craigslist for private gun buyers. 54% of the sellers readily admitted that they would sell to people who admitted they couldn't pass a background check. A NYPD investigation found Armslist likely to be a major conduit for illegal gun sales. Mother Jones

But we don't need any kind of new regulation. Uh uh.