On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:00:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?

I have yet to go to a gun show where background checks were not performed on the spot
by the dealers selling guns. And, I've been to a bunch of gun shows.

Individuals selling a gun out of their trunk (the loophole?) couldn't do a background
check if they wanted to. Remember, Greg (another who says nothing can be done?)
suggested a while back to allow anyone to run the background check program. Why not?
But right now it's not possible.

Kinda stupid, huh?

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:00:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?


I ask again, if that is your goal, why not just open up the background
check to private citizens? Is that too easy?

On 1/6/2016 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:00:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?


I ask again, if that is your goal, why not just open up the background
check to private citizens? Is that too easy?



I don't have a problem with that. It has to be a double edged though,
meaning someone who sells or transfers a gun to someone else without
doing the background check ... or transfers the gun even though the
background check found the buyer to be not eligible, the seller has some
culpability should the gun end up being used in a crime. It will
require a data base and registry of owners, something that few people
with guns are willing to accept.

On 1/5/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.



Ok. Then let me ask this: If the sellers of those guns at the gun
shows had been required to do a background check on the buyer (making
them liable as well for breaking federal law) how many of them would
have made the transaction without even asking for identification?

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:56:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.



Ok. Then let me ask this: If the sellers of those guns at the gun
shows had been required to do a background check on the buyer (making
them liable as well for breaking federal law) how many of them would
have made the transaction without even asking for identification?


The "gun show" rhetoric is really flawed since the transactions CNN
participated in were outside the actual gun show.
They had to go on a 4 state road drip to find a couple of people who
were willing to break the law. So what? They started this quest with
the conclusion in mind and searched for the proof on a 600 mile drive.
I am sure there were plenty of law breakers right in downtown Atlanta
who would have sold them an illegal gun. They could have picked up
some illegal drugs and got a hooker in the same area.

On 1/6/2016 11:00 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:56:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.



Ok. Then let me ask this: If the sellers of those guns at the gun
shows had been required to do a background check on the buyer (making
them liable as well for breaking federal law) how many of them would
have made the transaction without even asking for identification?


The "gun show" rhetoric is really flawed since the transactions CNN
participated in were outside the actual gun show.
They had to go on a 4 state road drip to find a couple of people who
were willing to break the law. So what? They started this quest with
the conclusion in mind and searched for the proof on a 600 mile drive.
I am sure there were plenty of law breakers right in downtown Atlanta
who would have sold them an illegal gun. They could have picked up
some illegal drugs and got a hooker in the same area.



So what? It still demonstrated how easy one with a hair across his ass
can buy a gun. Or two. Or three.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:35:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



So what? It still demonstrated how easy one with a hair across his ass
can buy a gun. Or two. Or three.


The point is, if someone was willing to break an existing federal law,
why wouldn't they break a new federal law?