FULL Gun Rights? Uh, Not So Fast Says Supreme Court!

[The Rabbi]

A clean paper-trail letting us know who bought what guns where contributes to the safety of our society overall....

Your position is unsupportable.

I am a little surprised this is the line ruffling feathers. I mean, how often does a paper trail not somehow contribute to society overall? If not for safety directly, then in other ways. How many people owned a car before you, who fucked up at work...unless it was you...

Some points to consider in favor of this "clean paper trail" in this case:

1) The transferee could be mistaken, or could be lied to, about the legality of the actual buyer. The transferee cannot always know, for instance, that the other person will pass a background check. You're essentially changing whose responsibility it is to "clear" the actual buyer. But of these three parties, only the gun dealer is capable of performing the background check!

2) When the police find a discarded weapon in relation to a crime, they need to trace it to the owner. If a suspect claims he does not own a weapon linked to a crime, the police need to be able to trace it to the owner. If perhaps police know, thanks to forensics, the kind of weapon used in a crime and have a list of suspects, they can check with local gun dealers and speed up their investigation. There are many scenarios where that paper trail will be a valuable tool to police. Now you may say criminals can get around these measures, but criminals make mistakes. And whether or not the person was previously allowed to own a firearm shouldn't afford him a shield in a criminal investigation.

3) If straw purchases on the part of dual parties who could both legally own guns was A-OK, why wouldn't those intentionally transferring weapons to those who couldn't legally own guns simply say they didn't know? Are we prosecuting many of the people who fucked up in my first point, or are we releasing many of those who conscientiously broke the law here?

4) Is there anyone who doubts that the #1 reason for straw purchases is to get around gun laws? Sure, there are loopholes, but nets don't have to catch every fish. I repeat: criminals make mistakes.

I don't know what else to say, guys. We know the law is catching crooks funneling guns to criminals. I just don't see how changing the language of the law won't make it more difficult for the ATF to do its job, and licensed gun owners can buy what they want either way.

Geezus, you know so little about guns, gun sales,a nd law enforcement it's hard to know where to start.
1) The private seller never knows for sure whether the buyer is prohibited. But it isnt really his business. As long as he does not know the buyer is prohibited then it is fine. And it doesnt matter how the seller came into posserssion of the gun to begin with. So it really isnt relevant here.
2) Traces rarely if ever turn up the actual perpetrator. Guns are seldom discarded at the scene of the crime, unless the criminal is dead or disabled there. The lawful buyer, being a law abiding citizen, is seldom if ever an actual gang banging criminal. If police know the kind of weapon, that narrows the chances down to about 1 in 100M. A Glock for example is impossible to do a ballistics match with. It never speeds up anything. Usually the opposite.
3) That is exactly what happens. If it turns out the lawful purchaser sold the gun to a prohibited person who then used it in a crime and the gun was recovered, the purchaser says he sold the gun, can't remember who bought it, etc. You would have to prove the seller knew the buyer was prohibited. That's almost impossible to do.
4) I dont know what the #1 reason for straw purchases is. It doesnt really matter. There is no reason to prohibit a lawful buyer buying for another lawful buyer when the ways around the problem are so numerous no one is going to get caught.
The law is not catching crooks funneling guns to criminals. Hell, the ATF prosecutes less than 1% of cases where prohibited people try to buy guns and fill out the 4473, lying on the form. Allowing lawful person to buy for other lawful persons wont change crime rates at all. It makes it harder for the ATF to trace every gun in America. And that's a good thing.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No, his argument was that it was not material to the transaction since no criminal intent was involved. 4 justices bought the argument, as I do as well.

yes i agree with that the nephew was the actual buyer

and that kagans chain of ownership claim is bogus

No, the uncle was the actual buyer. That's clear. I just dont think it makes a difference.

it should make a difference

however that is not how the ATF interprets it

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes i agree with that the nephew was the actual buyer

and that kagans chain of ownership claim is bogus

No, the uncle was the actual buyer. That's clear. I just dont think it makes a difference.

A quick question. Does anyone know if the conviction was a felony conviction, thus removing the nephews right to bear arms?

Does anyone know if the conviction was a felony conviction

they affirmed the convictions