Recent events and background checks

Jammersix · Sep 6, 2019

Styx said:
I strongly disagree. That all depends on the context and what exactly is being argued. It's not just black and white.

Disagree all you want. The difference between a right and a privilege is fundamental to our way of life.

When everything else has been said, that one fact will remain, and it will stand on its own.

boom boom · Sep 6, 2019

Spats McGee said:
As it stands today, unless I am somehow negligent in my sale of a firearm, and unless the issue of intervening or superseding causation is somehow taken out of the equation, I'm already not liable for the acts of a (criminal) third party. It's not much of a carrot if you're giving me what I already have.

Apples and orangutans. To use your traffic example, what you're talking about is holding a person "both legally and civilly" responsible when some other person (to whom the first person sold a car) runs a red light and causes an accident.

No, they key is to not have registration. Yes, we register cars and homes. Those other records of transactions (bank records, credit card statements, store video, etc.) are not "registration" with the government.

Two quick problems: (1) Serial numbers aren't standardized, so if you want to tie a particular gun to a transaction, it's going to have to have make and model, too. (and that might make it registration?) Otherwise, a sale of a Glock with serial number BADID5050 may well get mixed up with a sale of the Colt Python with serial number BADID5050.

(2) If you're talking about criminal liability, you can't make the defendant (the person said to have sold the gun) prove anything. It's the State's job to prove the crime, not the defendant's job to disprove it.

Who says we don't want to solve the problems?!? We want to solve the problem of violence every bit as bad as the antis. We just have radically different ideas about how to go about it.

You can't hold someone criminally liable for not being able to disprove the allegations against them. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works!

The history of negotiations with the antis has been a history of give-and-take. We give and they take. The antis lie about what they want to take and lie about what we give up. You cannot expect to be able to negotiate with them in good faith. History shows us that they do not expect to negotiate in good faith with us.

A little light reading on this issue: https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

As a practicing attorney, just out of curiousity, what do you think about applying the felony accomplice rule to folks that knowingly sell to prohibited persons (Dayton killer) or to people planning actions such as terrorism (San Bernadino). I do not remember whether Arkansas has this rule but Georgia has and does apply it to things like robberies etc. where a death occurs.

Styx · Sep 6, 2019

Jammersix said:
Disagree all you want. The difference between a right and a privilege is fundamental to our way of life.

When everything else has been said, that one fact will remain, and it will stand on its own.

Yes, there is a difference between rights and privileges, but that does NOT mean that under certain context both can't be compared to one another.

For example, both firearms and vericles can both require licencing for carry/use on public streets as well sterilization (vin numbers). In those two context, it is possible to have a debate or discussion without there necessarily being any conflict with the fact that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right.

On the other hand, if we're debating outright bans, where one is permitted to carry/drive, what type of firearms and cars respectively one can own, then yes, in that context rights vs privileges can render one side of the argument moot.

I can also compare the two to show the hypocrisy. How a cars and alcohol, which kills much more people, is treated differently than firearms. How even though more people are killed and injured as a result of alcohol consumption, breweries aren't being blamed and the prevention laws aren't really affecting the general public. Laws generally target the individual who brake the law. No one proposes that we stop alcohol related deaths/accidents by mandating that all cars have breathalyzers in them for example... Like I said, what's actually being discussed makes a difference on whether the two can be compared or not..

Deanimator · Sep 6, 2019

Charlie Horse said:
Some, but there really don't seem to be that many of those. Most are simply so incredibly ignorant. Discussions about "shoulder things that go up" come to mind.

There's a long history of them here, going back to the AHSA days. So-called "gun owners" can regularly be called upon to back (or falsely deny the existence of) the most extreme examples of existing or proposed racially invidious gun controls. They can be relied upon to deceitfully deny the racist history of gun control in this country.

Charlie Horse · Sep 6, 2019

Deanimator said:
There's a long history of them here, going back to the AHSA days. So-called "gun owners" can regularly be called upon to back (or falsely deny the existence of) the most extreme examples of existing or proposed racially invidious gun controls. They can be relied upon to deceitfully deny the racist history of gun control in this country.

Yes, there are. Always have been, always will be. But some are honestly stupid enough to believe that they can make this or that deal and they'll be safe.

"Racially invidious" again? Racism has nothing to do with it, and it hurts your credibility to keep harping on it. If we take up a collection and buy you a new catch phrase, will you retire this one?

SharpDog · Sep 6, 2019

boom boom said:
As a practicing attorney, just out of curiousity, what do you think about applying the felony accomplice rule to folks that knowingly sell to prohibited persons (Dayton killer) or to people planning actions such as terrorism (San Bernadino). I do not remember whether Arkansas has this rule but Georgia has and does apply it to things like robberies etc. where a death occurs.

As long as you can prove that they knowingly sold to a person that was a felon (or about to be) that would be fine with me. However, that seems to be a high burden of proof, unless a UBC was required ...

SharpDog · Sep 6, 2019

Holy Cow, I do not see the need for calling folks 'racist' re: gun control. That is becoming a rallying cry for 'those that cannot be named'.

Spats McGee · Sep 6, 2019

boom boom said:
As a practicing attorney, just out of curiousity, what do you think about applying the felony accomplice rule to folks that knowingly sell to prohibited persons (Dayton killer) or to people planning actions such as terrorism (San Bernadino). I do not remember whether Arkansas has this rule but Georgia has and does apply it to things like robberies etc. where a death occurs.

Arkansas does have accomplice liability: "A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person if: . . . . (2) The person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense; or . . . . " Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-402 (West), and I'd be perfectly comfortable applying accomplice liability for sellers who knowingly sell to prohibited persons or to people they know plan to carry out crimes with whatever guns they sell to the primary actors (for lack of a better term). To my mind, that's not nearly as problematic as attaching liability (civil or criminal) to one who sells without a background check.

boom boom · Sep 6, 2019

Spats McGee said:
Arkansas does have accomplice liability: "A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person if: . . . . (2) The person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense; or . . . . " Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-402 (West), and I'd be perfectly comfortable applying accomplice liability for sellers who knowingly sell to prohibited persons or to people they know plan to carry out crimes with whatever guns they sell to the primary actors (for lack of a better term). To my mind, that's not nearly as problematic as attaching liability (civil or criminal) to one who sells without a background check.

I think that the felony accomplice rule would address the problematic behavior of straw buyers who sell to gang bangers and the like because few of these folks really want to be charged with the crimes committed with the weapon and those like David Fortier who enable the OKC bomber or the guy that bought firearms for the San Bernandino murderers knew these were for terroristic type actions. A lot of folks don't have the guts to pull the trigger but are perfectly comfortable with having someone else do it. Knowing that they might face the death penalty for this type of action might dissuade those who provide aid and comfort to mass murderers or terrorists.

Robert · Sep 6, 2019

We seem to have lost sight of the original purpose of this thread. We have wandered far off the path, so let's call it a day.

Recent events and background checks

Jammersix

Member

boom boom

Member

Styx

Member

Deanimator

Member

Charlie Horse

Member

SharpDog

Member

SharpDog

Member

Spats McGee

Moderator

boom boom

Member

Robert

Administrator

Similar threads