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

Skip to comments.

Gun control advocate may have violated gun laws
Kentucky.com ^ | Thu, Mar. 21, 2002 | Timothy J. Burger

Posted on 03/22/2002 8:07:56 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan

WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned....

(Read the rest here)


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; brady
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-186 next last
To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Drudge has it on his site now, with a link to a Miami paper.

Here's a question, Sarah says she was inspired to fight in 1985, when her 5 year old son picked up a loaded weapon in a 'friends' truck.

She bought the rifle for a Christmas present in 2000. That would have made little Jimmy, 20 years old. What's the law in DE for minors and guns?

141 posted on 03/22/2002 11:53:30 AM PST by TC Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
Who is Scott Brady? Who is James Brady Jr.?

James Scott Brady, Jr., son of Sarah and Jim.

142 posted on 03/22/2002 11:55:58 AM PST by TC Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: randog
Good question. Any Delaware Freepers know any names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.? This calls for a massive freep.

Delaware Attorney General's Office

How to contact us:

Wilmington Office:
Carvel State Office Building
820 N. French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

Civil Division: (302)577-8400
Criminal Division: (302)577-8500
Fraud & Consumer Protection Division:
(302)577-8600

Dover Office:
102 W. Water Street
Dover, DE 19901
Criminal Division: (302)739-4211
Civil Division: (302)739-7641

Georgetown Office:
114 East Market Street
Georgetown, DE 19947
Phone: (302)856-5353

143 posted on 03/22/2002 11:59:08 AM PST by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5;Eugene Tackleberry
Maybe I have an advantage over some others 'cause I've made some gift purchases for some of my family. Nothing says "Gee you're a swell kid" like a 10-22, mini-30, or other appropriate items. When the time comes, they will hae something and not have to worry about filling out forms.

As far as prosecuting Brady for violating state laws, I'd have to say that I'm against that only because I think that the law is wrong. I have a hard time pushing for prosecutions with which I disagree. For me it's just a matter of consistency. But just the same, she deserves all the crap that can be tossed her way for being an enemy of the Constitution.

144 posted on 03/22/2002 12:05:53 PM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
That's strange. Still no comments on the DU post. What's wrong democRATs, can't think of anything to say?

Give them time. When a leader of one of their favorite causes is found violating the law, they need time to spin the story and turn it around.

"Seeing the evil gun made me do it."
"The evil gun hypnotized me and made me do a straw purchase."

145 posted on 03/22/2002 12:11:49 PM PST by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: rllngrk33
I hate to rain on everyones parade but this was a legal purchase. It still stinks of hypocracy. By the way, why is she buying her son a sniper's rifle any way?

Hmm.... that's got me thinking.

Maybe things are so bad off at the gun control lobby camp that they are going to do some sniping of prominent citizens to further their cause. Time to put that rifle under surveilance.

146 posted on 03/22/2002 12:14:53 PM PST by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Eugene Tackleberry
It is the state laws that might make the case, and create a federal crime by the violation of either the state laws she purchased it in or the state laws in which she resides.
147 posted on 03/22/2002 12:15:17 PM PST by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

Hypocrite, yes.

Liar, possibly.

Criminal under Deleware State Law, probably not.

I didn't see anything in the Deleware statutes violated by the fact pattern given in the article, assuming both Bradys were residents of DE and both were legally allowed to own firearms.

(Standard disclaimer applies: I am not, nor do I wish to be, admitted to Deleware State Bar.)

There are prohibitions against "selling" a gun to another person by a non-dealer without first going to a dealer to get a criminal background check on the buyer, but no prohibition on giving, lending, or leasing.

148 posted on 03/22/2002 12:17:54 PM PST by the
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
???!!! If no one was ever prosecuted for such violations, I could see your point. But that is not the case, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on whether or not Brady should be prosecuted.
149 posted on 03/22/2002 12:18:16 PM PST by Eugene Tackleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
Delaware Firearms Law

18.

Also, see my post above

150 posted on 03/22/2002 12:20:15 PM PST by the
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Hangfire, Incindiary, AnnaZ
hehehehe
151 posted on 03/22/2002 12:28:58 PM PST by Feiny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eugene Tackleberry
I'm not wanting to let her off the hook, but I don't think that anybody should be prosecuted for this. I don't believe in background checks, forms, or permission slips, for me, for you, or for Sarah Brady. It's not consistent for me to fuss about an NRA member that might ignorantly or innoccently make the same mistake and then get all upset over Brady's hypocracy. But we can disagree on that.
152 posted on 03/22/2002 12:29:59 PM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Squantos;harpseal,Travis McGee,Squantos,sneakypete,Chapita
How sweet it is!


153 posted on 03/22/2002 12:31:32 PM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
As far as prosecuting Brady for violating state laws, I'd have to say that I'm against that only because I think that the law is wrong. I have a hard time pushing for prosecutions with which I disagree. For me it's just a matter of consistency. But just the same, she deserves all the crap that can be tossed her way for being an enemy of the Constitution.

Eagle Eye, in other circumstances (if this were Joe Blow on the street), this evil bitch and her ilk would be screaming for prosecution. In fact, given that the crime was committed in 2000, the BATFags would probably have already broken down his door and hauled him off to the hosegow (if they didn't shoot him first), and there would not have been word one in the papers about it. And to those who say "no Federal law was broken", I would remind everyone that it is only a "legal transaction" under Federal law as long as it is also in compliance with State and local laws. There is a Federal violation here because the transaction violated State law.

That being said, I have to disagree with you on prosecution in this case BECAUSE this evil bitch is largely responsible for the law in the first place. I too disagree with the law, because it is a CLEAR VIOLATION of Amendment 2 to the Constitution. But if this evil bitch is allowed to skate because of who she is, then IMO it is way past time to use the 2nd for its intended purpose.

Molon Labe!!

Toward FREEDOM

154 posted on 03/22/2002 12:32:00 PM PST by Neil E. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Neil E. Wright
Trust me, I understand your point. I'm probably unique in my view. Oh well.

IMO, if a law is unconstitutional, then prosecuting anyone, even if we hate really, really, really disapprove of her, is wrong.

Additional presecutions of an unjust law are not right, even if temporarily satisfying.

155 posted on 03/22/2002 12:47:23 PM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
afternoon bump!
156 posted on 03/22/2002 1:57:58 PM PST by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kayak; .45MAN
Hello kayak!

Thanks for the ping.....if this is true, the irony is delicious!

Hypocritcal, liberal scum indeed! When will these HCI people see themselves as the brainless, bedwetting dumb butts that they are?

157 posted on 03/22/2002 2:18:57 PM PST by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
BTTT!!
158 posted on 03/22/2002 2:38:07 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Laws are for the peasants to obey. They don't apply to the elites.
159 posted on 03/22/2002 2:46:28 PM PST by Barnacle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #160 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-186 next last

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.

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