Skip to comments.Supreme Court to Decide If One Person Can Buy Gun For Another
Posted on 01/22/2014 4:33:05 PM PST by Mad Dawgg
click here to read article
Step One Mandatory Gun Registration.
Step Two Make it illegal to gift guns. (If its illegal to give someone a gun then guns can not be transferred to someone upon the death of the owner.)
Step Three wait for a Crisis and use it to end sales of guns to the general public.
but then again, it's still hard to fathom that muzzies, along with commies, are running the WH -
and that they own the Supremes
So why, unlike voting, I have to produce an ID to buy a gun to exercise a Constitutional right?
I hope so. The Gift of a gun to a trained a responsible person is a great thing, perhaps a life saving event. The gift-gun; perfect for weddings, birthdays, college graduation or the senior relative who still has their upper body strength, and now lives in a questionable part of town.
I don’t know that the “gun” is what is at issue here. What if someone purchases a chronic alcoholic a car? What if someone purchases an anarchists’ cookbook for a muslim? What if someone purchases a dime bag for a pResident?
Where are the liabilities and who exactly is responsible for the giftee’s actions?
all anti-gun crap aside, it is an interesting question, from a layman’s legal sense at least. Minors can’t purchase alcohol, for example, and it’s also illegal for adults to purchase and give booze to minors. An imperfect analogy, but that’s why I think it’s interesting.
Because the one is more dangerous to the tyrant than the other.
No mystery how this evil court will rule
“...The decision stems from a 2009 case in which former police officer
bought a discounted gun and then sold it to his uncle...”
I’m over 60.
Over the last 40 plus years I have given several guns as gifts
and I have been given several guns as gifts.
The federal government can not stop that unless they create a national gun registry.
Just ban the 2nd Amendment already, some of us are bored and suffering from overabundant ammo fumes.
It'll be the end of buying pitchers of beer.
This is crazy. You cannot gift a gun?
I already know the answer, regardless of what the black robed appointees say.
The answer is yes.
“TO KEEP” MEANS “TO HAVE CONTROL OF”- WEBSTER`S DICTIONARY
TO CONTROL MEANS YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.
THESE JUDGES ARE DOING A CLINTON TRYING TO DEFINE THE WORD “THE”
THROW THE BUMS OUT
I’m sure John Roberts is there on the side of the Second Amendment. He can call it a “tax”.
Under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), it is unlawful for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a * * * licensed dealer * * * knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement * * * intended or likely to deceive such* * * dealer * * * with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale * * * under the provisions of this chapter.My bold above, on what I think is the key phrase. Somebody purchasing a gun, intending to transfer it to someone who was legally ineligible to own a firearm, would be in violation. Mr Alvarez legally purchased the gun and took possession. He subsequently sold it to his uncle, making the transfer through a licensed dealer, who would have had to run a background check on the uncle. Both he and the uncle were legally able to own a gun.
A national gun registry will NOT stop the movement of guns between individuals. It will ONLY stop the movement of guns between law abiding sheeple. Society’s unconscionable ne’er-do-wells will continue to share their hardware on an adhoc basis.
Apart from the tendency of law abiding sheeple to remain in compliance with whatever anti-Constitutional edicts emanate from Mordor on the Potomac (Thx, Mike Church), a national gun registry will only come into play when a firearm is of interest to the LEO community; and, then, only to the extent that a registry can provide the chain of custody of said firearm.
In Texas, It’s legal for a parent to purchase alcohol for their minor child in a restaurant, for example.
I think the analogy is too imperfect. A minor cannot have alcohol, regardless of the method of obtaining it. This case deals with US citizens who have a right to own a gun, and can buy it themselves.
In essence, this is about government interference in private transfers of goods that both parties are legally allowed to own. The trick is that the right to own a gun is getting detached from the right to get a gun without some government agent making a note in your permanent database records. Subjects of California do not have this right, with exception of spouses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.