Our favorite Brady Board member:
As I have said over and over and over again- yes sir, it is legal to sell guns to felons in most states that have not passed a law to require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. Private sellers are more than just people selling occasionally. Some of these private sellers sell hundreds of guns a year at gun shows. That is a fact that cannot be avoided…
Under current law, it is never lawful, in any state, to knowingly sell a gun to a felon, whether there’s a background check conducted or not. It is never legal for a felon to purchase a firearm, whether from an FFL or from a private seller. It is never legal to sell a firearm to someone who does not reside in the same state that you do. It is again, not legal for someone to be engaged in the business of selling firearms and to not hold a federal firearms license. This is all current law. I could quote the relevant parts of federal statutes, but I think most people here are familiar with them.
So essentially, the leaders of the gun control movement are advocating we make changes to federal law, when they don’t even really understand what federal law currently is. Not only that, but if there’s a coherent argument for ending private transfers coming out of Common Gunsense, I’ve yet to hear it. This is in spite of some people being willing to have a dialog on the issue.
We can certainly talk about enforcement of these current laws at gun shows, and how we can do better. ATF has undermined enforcement of illegal trafficking at gun shows by not being able to help itself from using strong-armed police state tactics when it’s tried. A better run agency would find a lot of willing help from the firearms community when it comes to preventing people dealing and buying unlawfully, but they don’t, and part of the reason is ATF’s long history of treating their mission as if it were to destroy the lawful commerce in firearms rather than to ensure that the firearms commerce proceeds according to the law.
The problem was know what the law is and she doesn’t nor does she believe it exists. it can’t because it violates her beliefs and the fanciful Brady teachings. We can’t have that.
Here in MA all her claims are specious as you must have a FID or LTC to legally own, purchase or possess a firearm and that FID is only issued (ignoring the may issue stuff) after a NCIC check. We have owner registration and firarm registration. Even if purchased elsewhere it has to
come in with paper so my answer to her is here in Brady heaven all I hear additional layers of restriction and her fanciful beliefs.
Eck!
The individuals who are really in the business but are unlicensed are already illegal sellers. In addition to the firearms laws they are breaking, they’re also breaking a bunch of tax laws. After all, I doubt they are reporting the profits they make from illegally trading in firearms to the IRS and paying self-employment & income tax on it.
The buyers who are prohibited persons are illegal buyers. So you have illegal sellers making transactions with illegal buyers. I don’t think either group will be affected by passing another law.
Maybe we should require drug dealers to check and ensure that all of their clients have valid medical marijuana cards (if necessary for the pharmaceutical in question) and clean criminal records, too. It’d probably be just about as effective. Oh, wait… That’s exactly why I have to go through a background check to buy sudafed, right?
another question of law, because firearm paperwork is tax paperwork, now that the BATF-E is under DOHS, not IRS can they still legally look at it? Could that be grounds for a lawsuit?
BATF-E is under the Department of Justice and not DoHS.
DoJ is still not Treasury, though.
“It is never legal to sell a firearm to someone who does not reside in the same state that you do.” Is this just for pistols, or does it apply to long guns too?
No interstate private sale. Must involve an FFL, I believe in the purchaser’s state if the seller is not an FFL. An FFL may sell a longarm to an out-of-stater if the laws of both states are respected.
“This is in spite of some people being willing to have a dialog on the issue.”
FWIW, it appears she’s getting tired of people correcting her or giving alternative viewpoints that undermine her position, and it moderating many of them into the ether now. I wonder how many comments here are moderated into oblivion?
Wow, just wow. The complete mental discombobulation and the gymnastics required are stunning.
She’s just confusing “legal” and “possible.” I think it seems to her that if something illegal still happens anyway, it might as well be legal so there’s no practical difference. The mind boggles.
That’s not that surprising – laws express the will of government, and since government is infallible, if something happens, it must be legal; at least in their minds.
@Mike
The last comment of mine she nuked was from her ‘slippery slope’ post regarding grenades. She posts http://www.shopping.com/hand%20grenades/products~NS-1~linkin_id-8013490~cid-59079801511 claiming that they are selling hand grenades online willy-nilly and I call her on it. My post? Nowhere to be seen.
I’d reply more to her nonsense if she weren’t the one moderating it. If she posted any of this on a regular forum her lies would be chewed right up, and she knows it.