Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

If a liberal is going to violate the law to attempt to take away our rights, they should be held to the law.
1 posted on 03/26/2013 9:53:39 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: mnehring

This was brilliant and the right thing to do.


2 posted on 03/26/2013 9:55:50 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Gosh... his dog killed a baby seal (where’s PETA?) and they are doing nothing. Why would the ‘authorities’ bother with this ?


3 posted on 03/26/2013 10:00:51 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The monsters are due on Maple Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

With Eric Holder as AG?

Yea, right.


4 posted on 03/26/2013 10:04:32 AM PDT by mazda77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
According to the instructions of 11.a, if you intend to buy the item as a gift (he's going to gift it to the law enforcement agency), then the answer to 11.a should be "Yes" - it's only an issue if you buy a firearm for someone else and it's not a gift (example - they give you the money, and you buy it - that's a straw purchase). This is a lot about nothing, really.

I can't copy the language from the PDF file, but the link is here: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf. See the instructions for 11.a.

6 posted on 03/26/2013 10:09:14 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
While I enjoy the irony and politics of the situation, there is a structural legal problem.

To understand the structural legal problem one needs to think long and hard about just what does the 5th Amendment mean. The 5th Amendment says that government can not make a person testify against themselves. It is a very important civil right, just as the 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment. When it comes to gun control, it means that laws can not be structured so as to require criminals to make statements such that they disqualify themselves from a purchase. It requires that others (and not the criminal) must be the forces that stop the criminal from getting the firearm.

Now that I have introduced the concept, we need to learn about two critical supreme court decisions. This better understanding of how “common sense” has nothing to do with the laws of the US will aid us in separating fact from fiction in many other gun control controversies.

The first Supreme Court Case (which is a shocker of a decision) involves gun control. It is Haynes v. United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

“...The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself. In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes...”

The second US Supreme Court case is United States V. Freed.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/601/case.html#605

“...To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them. The transferor must identify himself, describe the firearm, and give the name and address of the transferee, whose application must be supported by fingerprints and a photograph and a law enforcement official’s certificate identifying them as those of the transferee and stating that the weapon is intended for lawful uses. Only after the transferor’s receipt of the approved application form may the firearm transfer be legally made. A transferee does not and cannot register, though possession of an unregistered firearm is illegal. No information or evidence furnished under the Act can be used as evidence against a registrant or applicant...”

What may seem like “common sense” to Democrats when they talk about the need for a universal background check, quickly deteriorates into a classic example of either an ineffective law or something that violates criminals 5th Amendment rights. Democrats, Bloomberg, and others really need to explain to the public just how gun control and universal background checks will legally work in regards to Hayes v United States.

10 posted on 03/26/2013 10:18:45 AM PDT by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Let’s not forget that Sarah Brady crossed state lines to buy a hunting/sniper rifle for her son.

She got away with it.


12 posted on 03/26/2013 10:20:35 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (The murals in OKC are destroyed. :-()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

ALSO, his wife is mentally impaired which means there shouldn’t be a firearm in the house.


16 posted on 03/26/2013 10:27:14 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

okay I had to take my guns in my home to a neighbors because I had my mother move in with the diagnosis of Alzheimers Disease. Did Kelly plan to keep the gun in his house with his wife Gabby Giffords whom has significant trauma to her brain? Alzheimer’s significant changes in the brain resulting in atrophy. brain trauma by being shot in the brain, would cue brain injury. Why was he allowed to make a purchase in the first place?


17 posted on 03/26/2013 10:42:25 AM PDT by hondact200 (Candor dat viribos alas (sincerity gives wings to strength) and Nil desperandum (never despair))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
At the risk of the flames, this is simply not a correct interpretation.

His intention was to take possession of the firearm after paying the cost of the firearm from his own pocket.

He therefore meets the criteria of the law.

It doesn't matter when he decided that he intended to turn the firearm over to the police, the fact is that he purchased a firearm with his own money, intending to take possession of the firearm for himself. IOW, he was the "actual buyer" of the firearm as required by law.

This was never a straw purchase.

Regards.

21 posted on 03/26/2013 10:54:37 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

He tried to make a “straw man” gun purchase, and his dog killed an endangered species. Both are federal felonies, aren’t they?


25 posted on 03/26/2013 11:47:15 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
LOL! That law is for peasants.

Mark Kelly is not a peasant.

26 posted on 03/26/2013 12:11:25 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson