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
So you command the US Army?
Gimmie a break.
>> “Oh! I think I know who you are...Pajama Boy, is that you?” <<
You’re a useless child with simplistic opinions and childish comments to every post.
Okay, so you are buying the gun as an investment. You know it will hold its value, or even grow in value, so your intent is to put the firearm away, in the box, never fired, and sell it at a later date. Are you in violation of the clause because your intent is to transfer the firearm rather than use it? (You aren't buying it for yourself as the end user).
The transfer in question is not willy nilly distributing firearms to just anyone, but a case of selling the gun to someone known--transaction performed through a dealer (FFL, NICS, 4473)--someone who is not prohibited by law from owning a firearm.
Big difference from selling Ravens out of a car trunk in the 'hood (or hauling guns to the cartels--which iirc, did not get prosecuted).
One more point: It was the 200 dollar tax they were going to use as leverage against Weaver to get him to be an informant. It was all the law they needed to prosecute. But when he wouldn’t play their game they decided to make an example of him. It is the latter butthurt on the part of the BATF that led to the slaughter on Ruby Ridge.
???? This is getting curiouser and curiouser by the minute. Not only are you:
* a sick and twisted little man,
* a delicate little flower of a sick and twisted little man who knows nothing of the US Army,
* but not you're making a stretch that would kill a contortionist!
When did I ever say I "commanded" the Army? No, I only served in it for 11 years, and therefore can confidently deduce that you know nothing about it, probably because you're either too delicate or too cowardly to have served. From there I can confidently deduce you're not too bright, and have great, big buttons that are so much fun to push.
Actually, this is getting pretty funny...keep on getting yourself worked into a lather, petunia.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho! (oh, I'm sorry...I know you feel threatened by military things)
Shooting his son, his wife, and his dog on a failure to appear charge seems a bit much, but things were more complex by then. (Marshall Deegan was dead). It was the exchange of gunfire on the hill which led to the siege/standoff, complete with tracked vehicles and machine gun positions in the treeline in case the protesters got out of hand (the latter facing the road).
Well if you think Laz and I are worth heaven, that’s cool.
It's not what I think, it's what Jesus has done.
Because it's all his work, nothing of mine, that allows anyone to go to Heaven.
What is sick and twisted is your insistence that your simplistic quixotic buffoonery is anything but a child’s ploy for attention.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Kindergarten is over for the day.
Be sure to take your galoshes and lunch box.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You need counselling, arrested development syndrome is robbing you of your life.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Regarding the request for advice via abuse report: My advice for you both is too disengage. Move on to other threads.
Depends on the state. Some states(non-’nanny states’) allow minors to drink at home under parental supvervision.
Most rights have exceptions not applied for minors.
“When they come for your weapons, they will get them, because they will be very selective and only get a few people at a time.”
What makes you think that “they” will get a few people at a time?
What makes you think that these “few people” aren’t backed up by a few hundred marksmen who can hit a target at 500 meters?
What makes you think that these federal Nazi goons can get within a mile of their target?
Answer my questions.
I’m getting real suspicious of you and your droning surrender monkey posts.
How many of these do you have?
That analogy is not only imperfect, but completely inapplicable to the question. In the case you used, one is allowed to purchase and the other isn’t. In the case at hand, both the purchaser and the recipient are legally entitled to own the firearm.
bankruptcy laws need to change making the second amendment rights an immutable asset class which can not be taken in an individuals’ case.
the liberal lefts (and judicial) meme is that guns are “born” evil.
Judges hate the second amendment because the judiciary as a whole abhors any form of self help.
Leftist dogma also can not condone/bless/help those who help themselves.
Judges and the left depend on dependency.
Did you know those devices are not autonomous, and that people crawl out of them from time to time?
the government prosecutes on the bases of “guilty until proven guilty”.
prosecutors as a whole operate on the basis of “everyone is guilty” and therefore there can never be a wrongful prosecution.
a minor can inherit an automobile even though they are too young to drive.
Yes I dd Laz, drove my first one 59 years ago, well not that one of course.
Remember how the Southern Long rifle boys were brought to the surrender table?
That's the difference between ownership and control. Yes, a minor can own a car, or a bank account, or a business empire. However it does not automatically mean that they can operate them. He may not have keys for the car; he may not have the signature right in the bank; and he may not have a seat at the board of the company - even though he is getting dividends from 99% of shares that he inherited, and is technically listed as the owner.
In case of alcohol for this argument to hold water you would need to similarly separate ownership and control. Can a minor inherit a collection of wine? This could be an interesting case because clearly the collection would be very valuable. Most likely a trust would have to be set up to control the items until the minor grows up. He wouldn't be able to sell it until then anyway.
Regardless of all that, laws are not necessarily logical, with so many of them being written in haste to patch up some hole. So if the law says that a minor may not own a bottle of alcohol, that's it. Pick another heir.
“We”? I hope you have a mouse in your pocket because you aren’t speaking for me.
OK General, where are you forming up your regiment?
If Patriots of old were here why did we not see them after Ruby Ridge or Waco? Why do we have our fighting men and women put in harms way whee they have as much to fear from JAG as they do the enemy?
Ruby Ridge and Waco were spun very well, enough to diffuse a patriotic response. Generally speaking patriots are not going to be gung-ho to take up arms for White Supremacist/Nazis or Pedophiles/drug dealers (how they spun these acts of tyranny).
Of course we still have people that believe whatever the government/media tell them, even good conservatives.
I am not one of them.
I said before this man was elected, that if elected he had no intention of leaving office, and I see nothing to date that dissuades me of that opinion.
For the marksmanship challenged.
This $22K sniper rifle comes with a WiFi server, USB ports, an iPad mini
and aims itself.
You might very well be right. It's going to be pretty hard to spin that as some crackhead/pedophile/Aryan nation plot isn't it?
Well, 8 months later the Supremes Ka-gan, stooge Kennedy, `Tweetie-bird’ Ginsberg, Stevie Breyer and Red Sonia decided that even if defendant Abramski’s uncle could have satisfied the requirements of federal form 4473, and even though Abramski was telling anyone who would listen that he was using his police discount to buy the gun for his uncle so that his uncle could save that money.
Abramski argued that Congress’s purpose in passing the law was to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of convicted felons, lunatics (and Democrats); and he further argued that the goal of Congress was not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.
Now we flash back to the police trying to hang a bank robbery on Abramski. Nothing came of that, so they got out his federal form 4473 and examined it carefully.
Abramksi bought the Glock 19 after receiving a check from his uncle that had written on the memo line “Glock 19 handgun”.
He apparently conceded that if he had bought the gun for an unlawful gun owner, that would be a violation. But he’s not a gun dealer. He just checked that he planned to buy it. Once he buys it, it’s his to do with as he wished. Then he was going to `sell’ it to his uncle (that is, if he wanted to preserve family amity).
At least this is the way we’ve always done things in a free market economy.
26 states submitted opinions supporting Abramski’s position, while 9 states and Wash DC filed (`We Heart Obama’) papers ...
And the SCOTUnitedStates ruled that it is unlawful for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner.
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.