serious trouble for a local guy who sold a gun to an out of state person

[goon]

We live in a country whose government, for the past 145 years, has, with increasing diligence, promised to relieve us of responsibility for our actiona or our life decisions if we would just acquiesce to its wishes and live as we are told to live. In pursuit of this goal it has created a code of laws which, if examined as a whole and in detail, is filled with conflicting principles based on contradictory philosophies. It only appears to be coherent because dedicated lawyers and judges sift through the conflicts to find something that works in the moment at hand.

At least some of that probably has something to do with why people can be sent to prison over arbitrary lines scribbled on a map.

To be fair, I do mostly agree with you. Don't have to like the law, but you do have to obey it if you want to live in peace.
And though I'm willing to argue principles all day long, I also think selling a gun to a 15 year old was a terrible choice if it was reasonably preventable. If the 15 year old looked 25 and had a fake ID, then it's hard to place blame on a seller who may have been a victim of fraud.
But if it was as simple as asking to see an ID or a CCW permit and the seller didn't even bother to do that much...

Long story short even if the boy could have passed as older and had a false I.D. the seller should have quizzed him on the I.D. to make sure it was legit and that he did in deed live in his home state.

Having never served as a law enforcement officer or bartender, I doubt I could tell a fake ID from a real one. If we start putting that requirement on private sellers, we might as well go ahead and just entirely outlaw private sales.

What I'd really love to see is a system that allows a private seller to run a background check on a purchaser himself. It would give us peace of mind and actually allow us to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

 

[skeptical_in_Ohio]

The border between WV and OH is an arbitrary line...

My apologies for the irreverence, but I thought this thread could use a laugh...the border between WV and OH is actually a river .

More seriously, while I concur that in a perfect world the following sentiment would apply, to wit:

The end-user decides how he will use a firearm and he is responsible for that.

As more than a few have already noted, readers of this site live in various nations that have certain laws (in my case the US), and some of these laws involve things such as arbitrary borders, and regulations on certain products, including to whom these products may be sold.

Again concurring with some previously-stated positions, I see no inconsistency in asserting that carelessly violating a pretty clear law is an act deserving of some sanction, while yet being convinced of the law's lack of justice or utility.

Further, if one follows the "arbitrary line" argument a plausible conclusion one could reasonably assert is that the border between Mexico and the US is an "arbitrary line" (OK, in some places it's a river, too), so why worry about people crossing it? Note: My apologies to the mods and other readers for potentially opening up a non-firearm can of worms with an example that could be seen as contentious.

Have a great day all.

 

[Field Tester]

If nothing more, Cee Zee's posts are always... interesting.

 

[Cee Zee]

Faking an I.D. is getting pretty hard now days to fake with the anti counterfeiting methods most states now use.

I'm sure it's easy for someone who knows what to look for. I know a driver's license is much more detailed now but I wouldn't know how to spot a good forgery. There's always going to be a market for fake ID's IMO because of kids wanting to buy booze. I just never thought I'd have to learn how to recognize bad ID's. When the government forces citizens to enforce the law we become a police state.

Before I sell any handguns or any guns for that matter I'm going to be more diligent about learning what to look out for. The way things are going too many gun grabbers would just love to see us get stuck with a felony and never get to own guns again.

BTW the Ohio River is divided between WV and Ohio. The actual line where the states meet is a few feet off the normal banks of Ohio. I don't know exactly how it works but I do know that both KY and WV own the section of the Ohio running by their state over to that imaginary line close to the Ohio side. It's very arbitrary actually because knowing where the normal bank is can be very tricky. It's probably more arbitrary than most state lines in fact. Tune in tomorrow for more useless trivia.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the end-user is responsible for how he uses a firearm. Not the seller, not the manufacturer, not the handgun, and not the scary black rifle with the shoulder thing that goes up.

The end-user decides how he will use a firearm and he is responsible for that.

.

You are saying that society has no interest in keeping guns out of the hands of....

Kids
Criminals
Mentally unstable

And we should just clean up the mess (dead bodies) when they get a gun?

And our response should be "Gee, that end user sure made a terrible decision, too bad all these ppl keep dying."

YOU can believe that all you want, i suppose, but MOST ppl think that PREVENTION is a decent idea.

 

[SC Shooter]

With so much publicity about illegal gun sales, the evils of guns, etc., I have little sympathy for anyone who does not know and understand the laws and statutes that cover weapons and weapon sales. If there is ever a doubt, go through a dealer. The few dollars it will cost you is pretty cheap compared to the moey lost while you are in prison.

 

[goon]

You are saying that society has no interest in keeping guns out of the hands of....

Kids
Criminals
Mentally unstable

And we should just clean up the mess (dead bodies) when they get a gun?

And our response should be "Gee, that end user sure made a terrible decision, too bad all these ppl keep dying."

YOU can believe that all you want, i suppose, but MOST ppl think that PREVENTION is a decent idea.

Have the laws we have in place prevented kids, criminals, and mentally unstable people from acquiring weapons and using them in criminal acts?

Whether society has the responsibility you mention or not, it doesn't seem that society is up to the task of keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
Is the answer more restrictive laws?

In this discussion, I've seen it pointed out that someone could acquire a fake ID and use that to buy a firearm. I couldn't spot a fake ID. Could you?
Even among the people you know, can you really be sure that they don't have some crime in their past prohibiting them from owning a gun? You sell them your 10/22 and all the sudden you've just armed a felon.

Isn't the universal background check the only way to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen?

There are lots of people out there who are calling for common sense, reasonable restrictions on firearms to minimize the damage that criminals, children, and the mentally unstable cause with them every day.
We log on to THR and talk about how naive those people are, how you can't stop bad people from being bad with an abstract concept like a law.
Then we log on to THR and rave about how we don't want restrictions on private sales.
Then we log on to THR and crucify a guy who just did exactly what so many here say they support.

Ironic much?

Meanwhile, why isn't anyone suggesting that the perpetrator who sought out a firearm and took it into a school is the most guilty party?


My real intention here wasn't to engage in some lengthy discussion about what should be done and what actually can be done though.
Nor was it to get in here and stir the pot and drag this discussion into the mud.
It was just to point out an inconsistency and try and make a few people think.

To be fair, about six months ago I had a discussion with a friend about gun control and even though we're both certified work-boot-wearin' country boys who've been into guns since childhood, we wondered if it wouldn't be a good idea to implement universal background checks and training requirements.

Would those requirements weed out all the children, criminals, and mentally insane people who do bad things with guns?
Well, with tens of thousands of gun control laws on the books already, we're still "cleaning up the bodies."
The definition of insanity - doing what you've always done and expecting a different result.

 

[buck460XVR]

There are a lot of laws could/should be repealed. But that does not mean that one can ignore them and with impunity.

^^^This. According to how I read the linked article that the seller was well aware of the fact that the buyer was from out of state and the transaction was illegal. He just ignored the law and thus will probably be prosecuted, as he well should be.

Have the laws we have in place prevented kids, criminals, and mentally unstable people from acquiring weapons and using them in criminal acts?

Well, with tens of thousands of gun control laws on the books already, we're still "cleaning up the bodies."

If the laws have stopped kids, criminals and the mentally unstable from using firearms to commit crime is something that can never be known, because there is no real way of ever knowing. The idea that the end-user is responsible for what the end-user does with a gun makes sense, but only if that user is of age where their cognitive thinking is mature enough and their mentality is stable enough to make responsible and legal choices. Criminal minds we all know, generally have neither. Keeping a responsible, of age citizen from owning or buying a firearm IS sheer lunacy. Most here will argue tho, that keeping them outta the hands of known under age children, known criminals and those known to have serious mental problems is not.

 

[JRH6856]

MOST ppl think that PREVENTION is a decent idea.

Prevention is only a decent idea after the first offense. Preventing the first offense necessitates unwarranted and undesirable restrictions on law-abiding citizens and still will not stop someone determined to offend. IOW, it requires tossing any presumption of innocence out the window. Deterrence is a better idea for reducing first offenses, but preventing them is impossible.

Meanwhile, why isn't anyone suggesting that the perpetrator who sought out a firearm and took it into a school is the most guilty party?

Because he is only 15 years old? He is a juvenile and our society does not consider juveniles to be fully responsible for their actions. Parents should be held responsible for the actions of their children, but that would give parents too much responsibilty for raising their children. The government wants that responsibilty. In our increasingly progressive nanny-state system, these are things we should just leave to government and quietly accept what it dictates.

 

[goon]

Because he is only 15 years old? He is a juvenile and our society does not consider juveniles to be fully responsible for their actions. Parents should be held responsible for the actions of their children, but that would give parents too much responsibilty for raising their children. The government wants that responsibilty. In our increasingly progressive nanny-state system, these are things we should just leave to government and quietly accept what it dictates.

Sad, but mostly true. I watched a 15 year old destroy someone's life once... a 15 year old is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and to be held accountable.
But... in the world we live in, that's probably not how it's going to work out.

The idea that the end-user is responsible for what the end-user does with a gun makes sense, but only if that user is of age where their cognitive thinking is mature enough and their mentality is stable enough to make responsible and legal choices. Criminal minds we all know, generally have neither.

If no fifteen year olds can be held accountable because they lack mature cognitive thinking skills and mental stability, and criminals also lack those same things, does that mean criminals also cannot be held accountable for what their underdeveloped minds force them to do?


Understand, I'm not saying it's a good idea to ignore the law.
I wouldn't sell a gun to someone I knew to be underage. But someone might inadvertently do it if a buyer showed up with a convincing fake ID. After all, the CCW permit for my state is just a laminated card. It could be faked easier than a driver's license.

But if we're going to have private sales, isn't this kind of thing bound to happen? Whether you have a fake ID, or you steal your older sister's driver's license and fake your way through with that, or whether the seller isn't the most attentive and doesn't check, aren't people who shouldn't have guns going to get them? Though a 15 year old was able to buy a gun in this case, could that same person have bought one if a background check had been required?

Maybe Pizzapinochle is right and the "meh... (shoulder shrug)" attitude towards criminals getting guns through private sales needs to be rethought.

Maybe universal checks are the only way to CYA.

 

[jerkface11]

You are saying that society has no interest in keeping guns out of the hands of....

Kids
Criminals
Mentally unstable

And we should just clean up the mess (dead bodies) when they get a gun?

And our response should be "Gee, that end user sure made a terrible decision, too bad all these ppl keep dying."

YOU can believe that all you want, i suppose, but MOST ppl think that PREVENTION is a decent idea.

"Most people" thinking something doesn't make it right or true.

 

[JRH6856]

But if we're going to have private sales, isn't this kind of thing bound to happen?

Of course they are bound to happen, but that doesn't mean you don't prosecute the offender when they do. Successful prosecution hopefully has two effects. It prevents the prosecuted offender from repeating, and it deters the potential offender. Neither is 100% effective, but to the extend they are, they reduce the number of offenses.

Prevention is not a realistic goal. It could be easily accomplished by eliminating all potential offenders, or on the opposite end of the spectrum. just make everything legal and they we would have no crime at all.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Makes one wonder.. we have contiguous state laws for buying rifles and shotguns but not pistols.

Time to change that law so you can buy pistols.

In fact, I feel if you pass the NICS checks you should be able to buy it ANYWHERE (as long is owning it in your state is legal.)

Oh, and I wonder if the one charged can use the 2nd Amendment since prohibitions to purchase out of state may be a 'unreasonable' burden'.

Deaf

 

[Frank Ettin]

So I live in Texas. If I go visit my cousin in Oklahoma and we go camping and a friend of his wants to buy my pistol and he is 21 but an Oklahoma resident, am I breaking the law if I sell it?

I swear I need to carry an attorney with me to remember all this....

In general under federal law almost any transfer (of possession, not just sales) of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another must go through an FFL. The exceptions are very few, very narrow and don't apply to the vast bulk of the sorts of transactions folks regularly get involved in. Those exceptions do not include gifts or transfers between family members. It's been that way for over 40 years.

There have been numerous threads on this Forum and others all about this, going into detail, and citing and quoting the laws. The rules are all laid out in the FAQs on the ATF website. All the information is out there and pretty easily available, especially with the Internet.

We all know that guns are heavily regulated under both state laws and federal laws. Violating laws can have some very undesirable consequences. We all owe it to ourselves to take the time and effort to become familiar with laws relating to guns so that we can stay out of trouble and keep from helping make lawyers rich.

We might not like the laws, and we might think they ought to be done away with. But unless/until that happens, we'll be better off if we don't violate them.

 

[buck460XVR]

If no fifteen year olds can be held accountable because they lack mature cognitive thinking skills and mental stability, and criminals also lack those same things, does that mean criminals also cannot be held accountable for what their underdeveloped minds force them to do?

Isn't that how it is now? Criminals under a certain age are tried and punished at a different level than their adult counterparts, unless they are charged differently. Aren't those diagnosed as having severe mental illness treated similarly? Is it right? I dunno, I too have seen some horrendous crimes committed by those that are very young. Is this because their minds are not fully mature, mentally challenged or both? Does it make sense to allow them to buy a firearm without restriction because of how some interpret the 2nd Amendment, when it is known they are incapable of making responsible decisions?


But this thread is not about why one can't sell a gun to an out of state minor, but about someone who knowingly did while knowing full well it was illegal.

 

[goon]

Of course they are bound to happen, but that doesn't mean you don't prosecute the offender when they do. Successful prosecution hopefully has two effects. It prevents the prosecuted offender from repeating, and it deters the potential offender. Neither is 100% effective, but to the extend they are, they reduce the number of offenses.

Prevention is not a realistic goal. It could be easily accomplished by eliminating all potential offenders, or on the opposite end of the spectrum. just make everything legal and they we would have no crime at all.

Absolutely!
And if you ain't got enough deterrence going on, just invent a law and prosecute some people. For instance, in Connecticut, maybe all those guys who refuse to comply with registration should be prosecuted immediately. That'd deter the rest of us alright!
A crime is a crime is an offense that should be prosecuted, right?


Really, the most enlightening thing about this thread is how quick gun owners are to throw someone under the bus.
Looking back through a lot of the comments here, without the actual facts of the case even really being clear yet, a great many people in this discussion are just chomping at the bit to string the seller up from the nearest oak tree. I think this mostly stems from the fact that he gave private sales a black eye.

These are the same people who'd make up a jury.

I have to wonder, even though I positively oppose universal check laws because of what they really mean, if maybe I shouldn't support them for my own self-preservation.
If every sale I ever make requires a government approval stamp, at least I'll never be held liable for what anyone else does with any gun they buy from me.

But this thread is not about why one can't sell a gun to an out of state minor, but about someone who knowingly did while knowing full well it was illegal.

Actually, has that been proven yet? For all the more you or I know, the teenager in question could have been 6'4" tall, sporting a beard that would make a viking envious, and carrying a fake ID or a driver's license that he "borrowed" from his older brother in Cincinnati.

 

[buck460XVR]

Actually, has that been proven yet? For all the more you or I know, the teenager in question could have been 6'4" tall, sporting a beard that would make a viking envious, and carrying a fake ID or a driver's license that he "borrowed" from his older brother in Cincinnati.

Again, the charge has nuttin' to do with the buyer's age, so the height, and Viking beard has no bearing. The only info we are really given in the linked article states that the gun was sold to an individual whom he(the seller) had “reasonable cause to believe” was not a resident of Ohio,". I assume the initial contact over the internet, exchange of phone numbers with area codes and further communications between the two may be the evidence that the Feds are using against him. You are correct tho, none of us know the whole story and he is innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure the taking the gun to school property by the buyer is part of the motivation for the initial investigation over the sale. To the sellers credit, he did turn himself in. As for throwing him under the bus, yeah, maybe we did a tad. I think it may be because so many of us realize that this kind of negative publicity about irresponsible and illegal gun sales(sale was illegal, even if the seller is exonerated) makes us all look bad and could endanger the future of gun ownership. We tend to do the same with those that have NDs and are convicted of poaching.

 

[Baron_Null]

My apologies for the irreverence, but I thought this thread could use a laugh...the border between WV and OH is actually a river .

Once again, it's an arbitrary line that is based on, this time, geography. Because one person has their place of residence on one side of the river, and the other person has theirs on the other side of the river, those two people are prevented from doing what they will with their own property and money unless the government steps in and approves the transaction.

If one party does not want to do business with people who live on the other side of that river for whatever personal reasons they have, that is their choice. However, deeming threatening people with imprisonment, fines, and violence because they sold their property to another party who lived on the wrong side of a river is unacceptable, in accordance with my personal beliefs and value system.

Further, if one follows the "arbitrary line" argument a plausible conclusion one could reasonably assert is that the border between Mexico and the US is an "arbitrary line" (OK, in some places it's a river, too), so why worry about people crossing it?

Note that I never condoned the existence of country borders either. Once again, it is a boundary that was at least somewhat agreed upon in the past by people who I have never met, and who lived completely separate lives than I. Despite my near complete lack of personal connection to them, I am forced to abide by the laws that they created concerning a border that others created, or forfeit my rights to my personal property, freedom, or even life.

In a theoretical world where there were no governmental and cultural issues created due to borders, I would be about as concerned with people crossing from Mexico to the US as I am with people crossing from Santa Fe to Albuquerque.

However, due to decades of enforcement by separate governments, the border has acted as a way to create criminal enterprises and black markets, which gives us the issues that surround people crossing the border.

I am in no way recommending that people ignore the law because of their lack of agreement with certain laws, but I cannot condone the mentality of blindly accepting the law because simply because it exists.

While I don't agree with the man's decision to knowingly break the law by selling his firearm to someone who he is accused of having reasonable belief was not a resident of his state, I cannot wish prosecution of him on that offense simply because it is bad PR.

 

[JRH6856]

Really, the most enlightening thing about this thread is how quick gun owners are to throw someone under the bus.
Looking back through a lot of the comments here, without the actual facts of the case even really being clear yet, a great many people in this discussion are just chomping at the bit to string the seller up from the nearest oak tree. I think this mostly stems from the fact that he gave private sales a black eye.

These are the same people who'd make up a jury.

I don't see anyone throwing anyone under a bus. Comments that you construe that way are (I suspect) made with an big but unspoken IF as in "IF he did this..." He is currently charged by a grand jury so there is at least evidence that he did. Whether or not he actually did is something a jury will decide.

And no, we are not the same people who would serve on a jury, unless some of us actually live in the same state and district where the crime occurred (6th Amendment). Besides, this is not a courtroom, it is an internet forum. The two operate under different sets of rules.

 

[goon]

I am in no way recommending that people ignore the law because of their lack of agreement with certain laws, but I cannot condone the mentality of blindly accepting the law because simply because it exists.

While I don't agree with the man's decision to knowingly break the law by selling his firearm to someone who he is accused of having reasonable belief was not a resident of his state, I cannot wish prosecution of him on that offense simply because it is bad PR.

Agreed.
Maybe I should have kept my trap shut and just let you do the talking in the first place.

I don't see anyone throwing anyone under a bus. Comments that you construe that way are (I suspect) made with an big but unspoken IF as in "IF he did this..." He is currently charged by a grand jury so there is at least evidence that he did. Whether or not he actually did is something a jury will decide.

And no, we are not the same people who would serve on a jury, unless some of us actually live in the same state and district where the crime occurred (6th Amendment). Besides, this is not a courtroom, it is an internet forum. The two operate under different sets of rules.

It's entirely possible that the people in this discussion could serve or have served on a jury in my state.
I'd almost call it a certainty that some of us have.
The people who post here are real people, and juries are made up of real people.
I'm not sure I'd want to be judged by most of the people posting in this discussion (and many of them may not want to be judged by me).

Government rubberstamp = no chance of going to prison.
Relying on gun owners = good chance of ending up under bus (based on comments in this thread).

Not saying I like it, but I'm now wondering if universal checks aren't a solid CYA strategy for all of us.

 

[Cee Zee]

Actually my official residence is still in that area although I'm living temporarily in another area. I own property there and I'm registered to vote there. So I could easily be called to be a juror there. But I think the punishment is way out of line with what he did as far as selling to someone out of state. The selling to a minor thing, if he actually gets charged with that, is another story. I believe many have wanted to throw the guy under a bus for selling a handgun to a kid. That certainly makes face to face sales look bad.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well the law is what it is. A lot of people think the law is wrong, and our system does provide opportunity to seek change of laws with which people disagree.

Those who find certain laws to be objectionable could get politically active and try to gain enough support to elect representatives who will change or repeal those objectionable laws. There are also various ways in which an objectionable law can be challenged in court; and those who believe that route should be pursued can help finance such judicial challenges.

So while I see a lot of people grousing about why the law as it stands is defective, but I don't see anyone proposing to do anything about it.

 

[dogtown tom]

Deaf Smith Makes one wonder.. we have contiguous state laws for buying rifles and shotguns .....

No we don't.
The "contiguous state" regulation disappeared 28 years ago.


https://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/tip-of-the-month-2010.html

Contiguous States. The “contiguous state” provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA), as enacted in 1968, allowed nonlicensed purchasers to acquire long guns from Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) located in a State contiguous to the State in which the purchaser resided if (1) the purchaser’s State of residence permitted such sale and (2) the sale fully complied with the legal conditions of sale in both such contiguous states.

This provision of the GCA was amended in 1986 to allow FFLs to sell or dispose of long guns to residents of any other state (not just contiguous states) provided — (1) the transferee meets in person with the FFL to accomplish the transfer; and (2) the sale, delivery and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in the buyer’s and seller’s States.

A number of States patterned their laws after the original provision of the GCA that allows nonresidents to purchase long guns from FFLs only in contiguous states. Many of those States have not revised their laws to reflect the 1986 amendments to the GCA that allow over-the-counter sales of long guns to residents of any State, as outlined above. This has caused confusion among FFLs, who often read such “contiguous state” State laws as prohibiting sales to residents of noncontiguous states.

ATF does not read State laws that refer to “contiguous states” as prohibiting sales of long guns to residents of noncontiguous states unless the language contained in that State’s law expressly prohibits residents from acquiring firearms outside that State. Thus, if the language in the State laws authorizes sales of long guns to residents of contiguous states, that State law also authorizes the sale of long guns to residents of all other states.

FFLs who have questions about particular State laws should contact their nearest ATF office.

 

[km101]

Stupid is as stupid does. He deserves whatever he gets.

 

[JRH6856]

Actually my official residence is still in that area although I'm living temporarily in another area. I own property there and I'm registered to vote there. So I could easily be called to be a juror there. But I think the punishment is way out of line with what he did as far as selling to someone out of state. The selling to a minor thing, if he actually gets charged with that, is another story. I believe many have wanted to throw the guy under a bus for selling a handgun to a kid. That certainly makes face to face sales look bad.

Well, I'm not in favor of convicting him of anything without a trial which he is apparently going to get. Let the evidence convict him if it can. Otherwise, let him walk.

Yes, the law sucks. GCA68 is Congress flexing its muscle through the Commerce clause that allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. And selling across state lines is interstate commerce any way you cut it.

As Frank says, if you don't like the law, work to change it. The best way is through legislative action but juries can do this through jury nullification. Regardless of what the judge may tell you, a jury has the power to ignore the law and the facts and acquit if it feels the punishment or the prosecution is unwarranted or unfair. And juries don't have to justify their verdict to anyone but themselves. Juries are very powerful and are the ultimate representation of the will of the people. This is the reason there is so much about juries in the Bill of Rights. And for a prominent example of how it works, look at OJ's murder trial.