Seattle judge rules that firearms deals should pay for crimes committed with weapons they sold

[2aguy]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Nope...first, we have the difference...owning a gun is a right and any fee on owning or carrying it is a violation of Equal Protection....

Second, we are talking about punishing people who have committed no crime....and the tax is meant to punish people for crimes committed with guns.

 

[Rustic]

Emotional silliness on your part, shit happens.
Drunk driving is the most preventable crime on the planet, I don't see you bleeding hearts trying to take away alcohol??
Take your bleeding heart and shoot it, it's worthless and weak...

emotional my gun owning ass ... apparently you're not familiar with the history of the 700 ... you and your ignorance are excused ... dumbass.

I know all about it, it's the best selling bolt action rifle of all time.
Your emotions have you deflecting... Grow up

I own 2 Pre 64 Winchester 70's ... 1 .270 - 1 .300 Win Mag.

Police forces all across the country took your " best all time seller" out of service.

sooo you own time bombs, not me.

I personally don't like the 700 and don't own one, but they are perfectly safe and if anyone wants to buy one they can.
Find a more up-to-date issue for your Deflection if you would please...

now that there was a recall they're safe, before not so much.

So, you admit you brought up an nonissue...
There are much bigger fish to fry

 

[2aguy]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

And in the old South the democrats made people pay a tax for voting and forced them to pass a literacy test....they had not broken any law either....and it was found to be an illegal, unConstitutional act.....

 

[2aguy]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Applied against a right, taxes become an infringement...as this tax is intended...

Guide to the Constitution


When you charge a fee for a Right you deny that right to those who can't pay......the exact purpose of Poll Taxes and the right to vote....

Guide to the Constitution

Beginning in 1889, Southern states reintroduced the poll tax as a method of disenfranchising black voters. As delegate Carter Glass declared during the Virginia constitutional convention of 1902, the tax was designed "with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." Additionally, poll taxes had the effect of disenfranchising the poor in general, including whites; later, it fell upon many women after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

--------

The Court noted that the Twenty-fourth Amendment, like the Fifteenth, "nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of impairing the right guaranteed." Continuing, the Court also found that the Twenty-fourth Amendment applies to "onerous procedural requirements" which effectively handicap, impede, or impair the "exercise of the freedom by those claiming the constitutional immunity."

The drafters of the amendment carefully limited its scope to federal elections. Two years after its ratification, the Supreme Court announced that the use of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even though it seemed evident that the conclusion was at odds with the original understanding of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, a position emphasized in the dissents of Justices Hugo L. Black and John M. Harlan. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966). In Harper, the Court dealt with a Virginia statute requiring the payment of a poll tax not to exceed $1.50 as a precondition for voting, an amount that Virginia argued was minimal and thus not a significant burden on the right to vote.

Admitting "the right to vote in state elections is nowhere expressly mentioned," the Court nevertheless invalidated the statute because "it is enough to say that once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court, explained: "[A] state violates the Equal Protection Clause... whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payments of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax."

The logic of the Court's opinion has made the Twenty-fourth Amendment virtually superfluous, as Justice John M. Harlan observed in his dissent.


Replace the Right to Vote, and the decisions the Courts made with the Right to bear arms......and you see why licensing is not possible, or Constitutional....

 

[Rustic]

Even normal lawyers dont think that way. There is no other area where legal responsibility is imposed like that.

Sure it is; if you serve a drunk customer at the bar, the bar can be held liable.

Can Your Bartender Be Arrested for Your DUI? | DrivingLaws.org

Yes they can because the server knew well ahead of time that they were contributing to a potential deadly situation. How about if we hold the convenience store or grocery store liable if a person buys alcohol and gets drunk on it a week later and runs somebody over in their car?

Don't b

Every time a dealer sells a firearm to a guy, they must first call the Fed Govt who does a background check (NICS check). The govt issues a "Yes" or "No" on whether the guy is allowed to buy a gun.

So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?

Perhaps I missed it.

Where was the call to the Federal Government made during these purchases?

First this dumba$$ in the video calls magazines clips(that means he's uneducated) second he's talking about the exception not the rule, most tables in these gun shows require an ID check/background check.
Your whining over spilt milk...

So the guy illegally selling and the host (High Caliber or Saxet) can be sued. Cool

There is no gun show "loophole".... Shit happens.
You and the a$$hole who made the video are barking up the wrong tree...

We just saw evidence that the gun show loophole exists big time

Not really... The guy who made the video has no credibility, far too biased.
He does not even know the difference between a "clip" and A "magazine" so he's stupid too boot...

 

[Rustic]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Driving a car is not an right, owning a gun(law abiding citizens) is... Dumba$$

 

[Iceweasel]

The first of many examples which the gun fraternity has yet to comprehend. People are fed up with gun violence and as long as the gun industry fails to police itself

People are fed up with drooling retards like you telling them what they can do and can't do. You're too stupid to understand that manufacturers aren't the police and libs like you love to make it more difficult for the police. Libs cause societal decay, law abiding citizens need guns now more than ever. From criminals and mini-tyrants like you.

 

[Iceweasel]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

That proves it's a privilege, not a right.

 

[regent]

Are auto manufacturers ever required to improve safety features on automobiles?

 

[Staidhup]

Apparently the distinguished and knowledgeable judge in Seattle was not informed, or chose to ignore facts as presented by the federal government that reports the highest percentage of deaths resulting from the use of a firearm were suicides, self inflicted. So how does the left of normal propose compensating those suffering from mental illness, or better yet treating these individuals? Are we now to assume these same individuals will resort to other methods available to end their lives? Lets hope it doesn't take the lives of innocent sane individuals in the process.

 

[Rustic]

Are auto manufacturers ever required to improve safety features on automobiles?

Hey dumba$$, no one has an right to autos. Are stupid in the head or something??
Take your whinny little bleeding heart and beat the shit out of it, it makes you stupid, worthless and weak...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Driving a car is not an right, owning a gun(law abiding citizens) is... Dumba$$

You can drop the name calling, I'm not impressed since I have degrees from two universities.

Having a license to drive is a privilege, not a right. Even though the 2nd is written that it is a right to bear arms, the reality is that right is a privilege in practice.

Only fools believe every person has the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm, in spite of their past behavior, mental state or threats of violence.

Many mass murderers were law abiding until they shot their first victim.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Driving a car is not an right, owning a gun(law abiding citizens) is... Dumba$$

You can drop the name calling, I'm not impressed since I have degrees from two universities.

Having a license to drive is a privilege, not a right. Even though the 2nd is written that it is a right to bear arms, the reality is that right is a privilege in practice.

Only fools believe every person has the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm, in spite of their past behavior, mental state or threats of violence.

Many mass murderers were law abiding until they shot their first victim.

That's true, so what's the solution, make all guns illegal?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Driving a car is not an right, owning a gun(law abiding citizens) is... Dumba$$

You can drop the name calling, I'm not impressed since I have degrees from two universities.

Having a license to drive is a privilege, not a right. Even though the 2nd is written that it is a right to bear arms, the reality is that right is a privilege in practice.

Only fools believe every person has the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm, in spite of their past behavior, mental state or threats of violence.

Many mass murderers were law abiding until they shot their first victim.

That's true, so what's the solution, make all guns illegal?

No, making all guns illegal is not something I have or ever will advocate.

There are some who would support such a policy, I'm not one of them, and the fact is total gun banishment or gun grabbing is the rhetoric of people like you not people like me. It is a slippery slope argument and a means to deflect reasoned discussion on reasonable gun control.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Driving a car is not an right, owning a gun(law abiding citizens) is... Dumba$$

You can drop the name calling, I'm not impressed since I have degrees from two universities.

Having a license to drive is a privilege, not a right. Even though the 2nd is written that it is a right to bear arms, the reality is that right is a privilege in practice.

Only fools believe every person has the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm, in spite of their past behavior, mental state or threats of violence.

Many mass murderers were law abiding until they shot their first victim.

That's true, so what's the solution, make all guns illegal?

No, making all guns illegal is not something I have or ever will advocate.

There are some who would support such a policy, I'm not one of them, and the fact is total gun banishment or gun grabbing is the rhetoric of people like you not people like me. It is a slippery slope argument and a means to deflect reasoned discussion on reasonable gun control.

Okay, so what "reasonable" gun control measures would stop somebody who's never so much as had an outstanding traffic ticket from getting a gun and committing a mass shooting?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Driving a car is not an right, owning a gun(law abiding citizens) is... Dumba$$

You can drop the name calling, I'm not impressed since I have degrees from two universities.

Having a license to drive is a privilege, not a right. Even though the 2nd is written that it is a right to bear arms, the reality is that right is a privilege in practice.

Only fools believe every person has the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm, in spite of their past behavior, mental state or threats of violence.

Many mass murderers were law abiding until they shot their first victim.

That's true, so what's the solution, make all guns illegal?

No, making all guns illegal is not something I have or ever will advocate.

There are some who would support such a policy, I'm not one of them, and the fact is total gun banishment or gun grabbing is the rhetoric of people like you not people like me. It is a slippery slope argument and a means to deflect reasoned discussion on reasonable gun control.

Okay, so what "reasonable" gun control measures would stop somebody who's never so much as had an outstanding traffic ticket from getting a gun and committing a mass shooting?

Don't know. I suppose the parents or close friends who see changes in someone ought to talk / listen to them carefully, and if they are concerned make a report to the local authorities.

 

[Flopper]

The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.

Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.

Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.

The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.

Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.

None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.

Only in America.

------------------------------------------

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM

Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.

On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.

In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.

Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."

This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."

The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.

Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.

Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.

The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.

Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.

None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.

Only in America.

------------------------------------------

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM

Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.

On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.

In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.

Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."

This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."

The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.

Well....... then maybe Obama can make a law where everybody has to have gun injury insurance. That's right. If you are shot by anybody with a gun for any reason, your insurance company will pay all the related costs.

Then we don't have to infringe on anybody's constitutional rights. After all, forcing people to buy insurance they don't want, need, or otherwise can afford is constitutional as far as this SC goes.

 

[The Rabbi]

The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.

Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.

Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.

The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.

Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.

None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.

Only in America.

------------------------------------------

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM

Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.

On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.

In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.

Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."

This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."

The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.

Why do they have more responsibility than you? Why not car dealers, since many criminals move around by car? How about sneaker makers, since they all wear sneakers. How about hoodie manufacturers, since they often wear hoodies? Or handkerchief makers since they are often used for gang signs.
It is yet another attempt to "stick it" to gun owners as a politically unpopular group. And of course it wont do anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Driving a car is not an right, owning a gun(law abiding citizens) is... Dumba$$

You can drop the name calling, I'm not impressed since I have degrees from two universities.

Having a license to drive is a privilege, not a right. Even though the 2nd is written that it is a right to bear arms, the reality is that right is a privilege in practice.

Only fools believe every person has the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm, in spite of their past behavior, mental state or threats of violence.

Many mass murderers were law abiding until they shot their first victim.

That's true, so what's the solution, make all guns illegal?

No, making all guns illegal is not something I have or ever will advocate.

There are some who would support such a policy, I'm not one of them, and the fact is total gun banishment or gun grabbing is the rhetoric of people like you not people like me. It is a slippery slope argument and a means to deflect reasoned discussion on reasonable gun control.

Okay, so what "reasonable" gun control measures would stop somebody who's never so much as had an outstanding traffic ticket from getting a gun and committing a mass shooting?

Don't know. I suppose the parents or close friends who see changes in someone ought to talk / listen to them carefully, and if they are concerned make a report to the local authorities.

Well, local authorities can't do much about that.

A few years ago I was in my driveway cleaning up. A strange woman was walking on the sidewalk, stopped and started spitting in my direction. She was screaming something about her daughter or something. She was way to far for her spit to reach me, but I became concerned.

Immediately I could tell this was a person not of sound mind. This was an emotionally disturbed woman who obviously was hallucinating.

By the time the police go there, she had entered her van and that's where the police stopped her. From my dining room window, I could hear her screaming at them. A minute or two later, the police walked away from the van and she drove off.

So I went back outside to question their actions. They told me she had a legal drivers license, and she really broke no law, so there was nothing they could do to her. I expressed concern about her mental state, and the police told me it was not theirs to judge. She broke no laws.