Average Gun Owner Legal Knowledge Poll

[Will Munny]

What this actually shows is not that gun owners are unaware of the laws, but rather that the laws have been written to criminalize innocuous, harmless, and reasonable behavior that no one would reasonably think of as being illegal. Grandpa giving his grandson that lives in the next state a shotgun for his birthday is criminalized behavior. I don't blame either of them for "not knowing the law" because the law here has been purposefully written to criminalize ordinary Americans engaged in harmless activities that intuitively should not be an issue.
The fix here is to change the law, and in the mean time take a page out of the playbook of the founding fathers and leverage jury nullification.

 

[dogtown tom]

What this actually shows is not that gun owners are unaware of the laws, but rather that the laws have been written to criminalize innocuous, harmless, and reasonable behavior that no one would reasonably think of as being illegal. Grandpa giving his grandson that lives in the next state a shotgun for his birthday is criminalized behavior.

I hate the common saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"....but c'mon...federal gun laws aren't anything new and the law on interstate transfer of firearms has been in effect for half a century......54 years to be exact. One would have to have lived under a rock for the last sixty years to not be aware that gun control is an ever present boogeyman.
To dismiss it as "innocuous, harmless, and reasonable" is a bit of a stretch. The same people who profess ignorance of federal firearms law find no difficulty in denigrating the ATF.....think about that for a second.

I don't blame either of them for "not knowing the law"

I do. Guns are serious business, with serious consequences for those that collect, shoot or deal in them. "I didn't know" is not a valid defense. One doesn't have to know the speed limit on I-30 to know that 120mph isn't a good idea. One doesn't have to know every item on the DEA Schedule to know that a prescription must be written by an MD. And you don't have to be knowledgeable of hunting regs in your state to know you just can't shoot a deer anytime you feel like it.

....because the law here has been purposefully written to criminalize ordinary Americans engaged in harmless activities that intuitively should not be an issue.

Nonsense.
It's clear from the texts of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act that crime was the concern. Sure, we know that criminals don't follow the law, so such restrictions impact only the law abiding. It's easier for Congress to prohibit an inanimate object than address the fact criminals do criminal things. Just as there are drivers who could safely drive 120mph on I-30, the speed limit is there to supposedly restrict those who cannot.

The fix here is to change the law,

I agree. Or await a court decision that does the work that Trump could have done his first two years.

and in the mean time take a page out of the playbook of the founding fathers and leverage jury nullification.

"Jury nullification" ?
Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nullification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury.
Good luck finding a judge that would allow the defense to make that argument.

 

[Will Munny]

The fact that it is not new is irrelevant. It is the needless complexity, overreach, and statutory obesity which is at fault. Expecting anyone but an attorney to have a working knowledge of the thousands of pages of regulations is unreasonable.

Lots of things are "serious business" but that is not an excuse to make the law a minefield for the average person.

BS.Crime was not the "concern" of either of those acts. Both were written with the express purpose of curtailing constitutional rights. The first was especially the result of depression era concerns about social upheaval, and the second was basically racist gun control following the 1960's social changes. Neither had anything to do with preventing crime, as evidenced by the fact that crime got considerably worse after both of them. Any talk about "crime" is simply a pretext.

Trump, like every president, is not empowered to repeal acts of congress by fiat. It requires a court decision or an act of congress to repeal the 1934, 1968, and 1986 infringements.

Jury Nullification IS a legally sanctioned function of the jury, as it emerges from the rights the founding fathers put in our constitution, the right to a jury trial (they were well acquainted with English attempts to override this) and the prohibition against double jeopardy. Yes, left wing judges and lawyers will bitch and moan about it not being "sanctioned" but to hell with that, it was a tool of the founding fathers and it is one they left us no matter how much it irritates the legal profession. As to "Good luck finding a judge that would allow the defense to make that argument" that is a strawman, nowhere did I suggest that anyone make that as a defensive argument, on the contrary the right to nullification is something that all supporters of the 2A should educate themselves about so when they are called to serve they can exercise the rights the founding fathers gave them for times like these.

 

[sequins]

It depends on your area. How many people know specific laws to the letter? Not many. How many know that is illegal? 100%. It is well known all transfers in or out of WA require a transfer

 

[Mousegun]

I went through 3 local dealers in my area before one finally got it right when it comes to transfer across state lines. They know how to sell across a counter, but are weak in the private transfer area, so it seems.

 

[dogtown tom]

The fact that it is not new is irrelevant. It is the needless complexity, overreach, and statutory obesity which is at fault. Expecting anyone but an attorney to have a working knowledge of the thousands of pages of regulations is unreasonable.

No, what IS relevant is you haven't read those regulations. If you had you would know that it isn't "thousands of pages". Try 79 pages for ATF regs (Part 478) and a whopping 36 pages for NFA regulations (Part 479)
I like to think I have a working knowledge of ATF regulations and at my last meeting with my IOI and her trainee I was complemented on what I did know....mostly because I knew more than the two of them did. And FYI......I'm not a lawyer. I just know where to look, what to look for and can read multiple syllable words.

Before you post again, go and read the regs. It should not take you more than a couple of hours:
Title 27 Part 478 Commerce in Firearms: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-478?toc=1
Title 27 Part 479 MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-479

Lots of things are "serious business" but that is not an excuse to make the law a minefield for the average person.

You haven't read those regulations, so how do you know they are a minefield? Short answer....you don't. Instead you choose the easy way out and just post a rant about "needless complexity, overreach, and statutory obesity". You'll be embarrassed after you've read those regulations.

BS.Crime was not the "concern" of either of those acts. Both were written with the express purpose of curtailing constitutional rights. The first was especially the result of depression era concerns about social upheaval, and the second was basically racist gun control following the 1960's social changes. Neither had anything to do with preventing crime, as evidenced by the fact that crime got considerably worse after both of them. Any talk about "crime" is simply a pretext.

Horsehockey. Hindsight always gives you a clearer view but in this case.........you haven't read jack squat about how those laws came to be. If you had you wouldn't have come to such a silly conclusion, one not shared by the federal courts....the arbiters of what IS/IS NOT "constitutional".

Further, "social upheaval" during the Depression? "Social changes" in the 1960's"
Like crime? Dude, using "social upheavel or social changes" instead of gangsters and race riots is a bit laughable.

Trump, like every president, is not empowered to repeal acts of congress by fiat. It requires a court decision or an act of congress to repeal the 1934, 1968, and 1986 infringements.

No kidding?
How about Trump, the supposed Second Amendment advocate ordering ATF to redefine the definition of machine gun to include bumpstocks? Thats certainly DOES require an act of Congress as thats not federal law.

Jury Nullification IS a legally sanctioned function of the jury, as it emerges from the rights the founding fathers put in our constitution, the right to a jury trial (they were well acquainted with English attempts to override this) and the prohibition against double jeopardy. Yes, left wing judges and lawyers will bitch and moan about it not being "sanctioned" but to hell with that, it was a tool of the founding fathers and it is one they left us no matter how much it irritates the legal profession.

No, it isn't. Five minutes on Google will show you why.

As to "Good luck finding a judge that would allow the defense to make that argument" that is a strawman, nowhere did I suggest that anyone make that as a defensive argument, on the contrary the right to nullification is something that all supporters of the 2A should educate themselves about so when they are called to serve they can exercise the rights the founding fathers gave them for times like these.

It's not a strawman argument, its a warning that only a fool would rely on jury nullification as a defense tactic. But go ahead, keep telling people about jury nullification.

 

[Will Munny]

In our legal system it is not just the statutes and regulations that apply, but thousands of pages of case law and precedent. Again, no normal person would expect law abiding American citizens to have to go through that.
I know they are a minefield because they criminalize harmless behavior like gifting your grandson a family heirloom across state lines. That is proof enough.

No, it was not "gangsters" again, that was a pretext. They had no issue putting the handful of those guys behind bars or pushing up daises. What they were worried about was socialism, Russia had fallen to the reds less than 20 years before, the US had an unsuccessful intervention in that war, and now 25% of the population was unemployed and blaming the capitalist class in NYC and Washington. There were socialists running on platforms of workers revolution in that era. That was why they enacted the regulation, not fear of "gangsters' most of whom were already dead or in prison by that point.
"Race riots" is just a dog whistle for racist gun control pretext. Not any legitimate concern about crime there either.

Clearly the bump-stock issue did not require an act of congress because it happened. Deal with it. Trump gave them the bump stock ban because the things are a stupid novelty that actual gun owners recognize as such, so he let the left wing think they got something there. The man literally wrote the art of the deal, I suggest reading it.

"Five minutes on Google will show you why", newsflash, not everything you read on the internet is true. It IS a legally sanctioned process, which only the left wing lawyers and judges piss and moan about. Tough.

You keep up with this bizarre notion that Jury Nullification is a "defense tactic" despite the fact that I never said that. I was very explicit, it is an advocacy strategy, one that has been successfully used many times before in our history to render bad legislation ineffective.

 

[dogtown tom]

In our legal system it is not just the statutes and regulations that apply, but thousands of pages of case law and precedent. .

Yet thas not what you wrote above.

Again, no normal person would expect law abiding American citizens to have to go through that

Nonsense, what do you think "law abiding American citizen" means? It means you abide by the law no matter whether you agree or disagree with that law.

I know they are a minefield because they criminalize harmless behavior like gifting your grandson a family heirloom across state lines. That is proof enough.

There is no crime for "gifting" a firearm, but there is a legal process that must be followed.
How about shipping a bottle of liquor to your dad in another state?
How about eating a handful of grapes at the grocery store before you get to the checkout?
How about a business not charging the required sales tax on a purchase?
How about not paying taxes at all?

"Harmless behavior" is a lame excuse. There are a lot of things in life that are harmless, but restricted.

No, it was not "gangsters" again, that was a pretext. They had no issue putting the handful of those guys behind bars or pushing up daises. What they were worried about was socialism, Russia had fallen to the reds less than 20 years before, the US had an unsuccessful intervention in that war, and now 25% of the population was unemployed and blaming the capitalist class in NYC and Washington. There were socialists running on platforms of workers revolution in that era. That was why they enacted the regulation, not fear of "gangsters' most of whom were already dead or in prison by that point.

Yet, not one word about "ooooohhhhhh, commies gonna get guns" during any of that legislation. Literally zero.
And then there's this:


How many NFA firearms do you see?
What year was he killed?
And you think it was really about socialism?
In half a century of reading about guns, firearms law and Second amendment rights.......you are the first to claim fear of socialism was the impetus for the 1934 NFA.
That's interesting.

"Race riots" is just a dog whistle for racist gun control pretext. Not any legitimate concern about crime there either.

Huh? How old are you?
To claim that "race riots" is a dog whistle? Oh brother.
I'm almost 65 and clearly remember JFK, RFK and MLK's assassination's. Not to mention the TV footage of race riots during the mid to late 1960's. And it WAS race riots.....being black people rioting in the streets throughout the 1960's and in hundreds of cities the week MLK was killed. Those riots WERE crime. And yes, it was the impetus for the GCA '68.
Pretext? What planet were you on in 1968? Where I was, fear of riots wasn't a dog whistle, but real life five miles away.

Clearly the bump-stock issue did not require an act of congress because it happened. Deal with it. Trump gave them the bump stock ban because the things are a stupid novelty that actual gun owners recognize as such, so he let the left wing think they got something there. The man literally wrote the art of the deal, I suggest reading it.

"literally wrote the art of the deal,"........tells me everything I need to know about you and Donald Trump. Thats Donald Trump, Second Amendment phony.

"Five minutes on Google will show you why", newsflash, not everything you read on the internet is true. It IS a legally sanctioned process, which only the left wing lawyers and judges piss and moan about. Tough.

Then ask a lawyer, he'll set you straight, he'll get a laugh and you'll be educated. It's a win/win.

You keep up with this bizarre notion that Jury Nullification is a "defense tactic" despite the fact that I never said that. I was very explicit, it is an advocacy strategy, one that has been successfully used many times before in our history to render bad legislation ineffective.

Well.....who the heck do you think uses jury nullification as an "advocacy strategy? The prosecution?
No sir. It's a defense tactic. Calling it an "advocacy strategy" is word games.