On 12/1/2017 12:11 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/1/17 11:10 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:50:45 -0500, wrote:

nobody actually enforces
the laws we have on guns.

===

I was pleasantly surprised to read about a couple of recent
convictions in Florida.Â* I believe one was for lying on the purchase
questionaire.

https://www.winknews.com/2017/11/15/fort-myers-woman-found-guilty-lying-firearms-dealers/


Another was for possession by a felon.

https://www.winknews.com/2017/11/13/convicted-fort-myers-felon-receives-15-years-gun-possession/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



Not that this is the case with your cites, but I wonder sometimes about
purchases of firearms as gifts for other people. I assume if the
ultimate recipient is named on the paperwork, that person is checked out
on the instant check, at least, though I would think the actual
purchaser is also checked out.

I've often thought about that. Without a proper paper trail it seems it
could get very cloudy as to where a gun came from and where it ends up.
For that reason, I'd never purchase a gun and give it as a gift. I
think all transactions should be through a FFL.

If someone wants a gun they can do like the rest of us do ... apply,
undergo a background check ... and become responsible and accountable
for it's location.

On 12/1/2017 12:17 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/1/17 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:33:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The "not guilty" verdicts of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate for 1st or 2nd
degree murder and involuntary manslaughter by the jury in San Fransisco
certainly has frustrated many.Â* The judge charged the jury that they
could *not* consider his illegal immigrant status, the fact that he was
deported 6 times but returned and that he had multiple felony
convictions in their deliberations.

I think the family of Kathryn Steinle (who he shot and killed) should
file a civil lawsuit for "unlawful death", but not against Zarate.Â* He
has nothing to recover.

The suit should be brought against the city of San Fransisco and the
state of California for at least a billion dollars.Â* I think they should
charge the city and state for causing the unlawful death by maintaining
a "Sanctuary" status and releasing a convicted felon and illegal
immigrant back into the population in direct defiance of federal ICE
demands that he be held for pickup and deportation.

In a civil action the bar is "preponderance of evidence",Â* not "beyond
any reasonable doubt".



===

Good plan.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



Lousy interpretation of what the law may do. Also, presenting evidence
of a prior criminal history typically is not something the prosecution
can bring up in a criminal case.


The perp is not a US citizen. The rights of a US citizen do not
necessarily apply.

You are just giving sanctuary cities and states a pass because they're a
progressive -liberal thing.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:17:35 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/1/17 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:33:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The "not guilty" verdicts of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate for 1st or 2nd
degree murder and involuntary manslaughter by the jury in San Fransisco
certainly has frustrated many. The judge charged the jury that they
could *not* consider his illegal immigrant status, the fact that he was
deported 6 times but returned and that he had multiple felony
convictions in their deliberations.

I think the family of Kathryn Steinle (who he shot and killed) should
file a civil lawsuit for "unlawful death", but not against Zarate. He
has nothing to recover.

The suit should be brought against the city of San Fransisco and the
state of California for at least a billion dollars. I think they should
charge the city and state for causing the unlawful death by maintaining
a "Sanctuary" status and releasing a convicted felon and illegal
immigrant back into the population in direct defiance of federal ICE
demands that he be held for pickup and deportation.

In a civil action the bar is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond
any reasonable doubt".



===

Good plan.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Lousy interpretation of what the law may do. Also, presenting evidence
of a prior criminal history typically is not something the prosecution
can bring up in a criminal case.

The family can certainly sue just about anyone in civil court for just
about anything, particularly wrongful death. Winning may or may not
happen and I am not even sure a judgement against the city would yield
much.
A far easier case would be for Sessions to go after this weasel on
federal gun charges. That comes with real time and it would get him
out of California where ICE gets a shot at him after he gets out of
prison.
Maybe in 20 years we will actually have a secure border and he won't
be back after they deport him ... for the 6th time.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:57:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The perp is not a US citizen. The rights of a US citizen do not
necessarily apply.

That has been adjudicated and upheld many times. If you are here, you
get all the rights of a citizen except voting although plenty of
aliens still vote. Motor Voter is a very leaky process and most people
who qualify for a driver's license are solicited to register to vote.
The ones NBC-2 caught here say they did not know they were not
eligible. DMV let them so they thought it was OK. (or so they claim)

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/1/17 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:33:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The "not guilty" verdicts of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate for 1st or 2nd
degree murder and involuntary manslaughter by the jury in San Fransisco
certainly has frustrated many. The judge charged the jury that they
could *not* consider his illegal immigrant status, the fact that he was
deported 6 times but returned and that he had multiple felony
convictions in their deliberations.

I think the family of Kathryn Steinle (who he shot and killed) should
file a civil lawsuit for "unlawful death", but not against Zarate. He
has nothing to recover.

The suit should be brought against the city of San Fransisco and the
state of California for at least a billion dollars. I think they should
charge the city and state for causing the unlawful death by maintaining
a "Sanctuary" status and releasing a convicted felon and illegal
immigrant back into the population in direct defiance of federal ICE
demands that he be held for pickup and deportation.

In a civil action the bar is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond
any reasonable doubt".



===

Good plan.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Lousy interpretation of what the law may do. Also, presenting evidence
of a prior criminal history typically is not something the prosecution
can bring up in a criminal case.



Was a witness, not prosecution. And he brought up the fact he was here
illegally. Is that a protected prior legal history!

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/1/2017 12:11 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/1/17 11:10 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:50:45 -0500, wrote:

nobody actually enforces
the laws we have on guns.

===

I was pleasantly surprised to read about a couple of recent
convictions in Florida.Â* I believe one was for lying on the purchase
questionaire.

https://www.winknews.com/2017/11/15/fort-myers-woman-found-guilty-lying-firearms-dealers/



Another was for possession by a felon.

https://www.winknews.com/2017/11/13/convicted-fort-myers-felon-receives-15-years-gun-possession/



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



Not that this is the case with your cites, but I wonder sometimes about
purchases of firearms as gifts for other people. I assume if the
ultimate recipient is named on the paperwork, that person is checked out
on the instant check, at least, though I would think the actual
purchaser is also checked out.

I've often thought about that. Without a proper paper trail it seems it
could get very cloudy as to where a gun came from and where it ends up.
For that reason, I'd never purchase a gun and give it as a gift. I
think all transactions should be through a FFL.

If someone wants a gun they can do like the rest of us do ... apply,
undergo a background check ... and become responsible and accountable
for it's location.




And how much does this cost?

On 12/1/2017 2:44 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/1/2017 12:11 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/1/17 11:10 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:50:45 -0500, wrote:

nobody actually enforces
the laws we have on guns.

===

I was pleasantly surprised to read about a couple of recent
convictions in Florida.Â* I believe one was for lying on the purchase
questionaire.

https://www.winknews.com/2017/11/15/fort-myers-woman-found-guilty-lying-firearms-dealers/



Another was for possession by a felon.

https://www.winknews.com/2017/11/13/convicted-fort-myers-felon-receives-15-years-gun-possession/



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



Not that this is the case with your cites, but I wonder sometimes about
purchases of firearms as gifts for other people. I assume if the
ultimate recipient is named on the paperwork, that person is checked out
on the instant check, at least, though I would think the actual
purchaser is also checked out.

I've often thought about that. Without a proper paper trail it seems it
could get very cloudy as to where a gun came from and where it ends up.
For that reason, I'd never purchase a gun and give it as a gift. I
think all transactions should be through a FFL.

If someone wants a gun they can do like the rest of us do ... apply,
undergo a background check ... and become responsible and accountable
for it's location.




And how much does this cost?


In Massachusetts it costs $100 and the permit is good for six years.
$100 again to renew for another 6 years. Free over age of 70.

Other than that, there are no additional charges to purchase a firearm
other than the cost of the firearm itself.

On 12/1/2017 2:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:17:35 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/1/17 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:33:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The "not guilty" verdicts of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate for 1st or 2nd
degree murder and involuntary manslaughter by the jury in San Fransisco
certainly has frustrated many. The judge charged the jury that they
could *not* consider his illegal immigrant status, the fact that he was
deported 6 times but returned and that he had multiple felony
convictions in their deliberations.

I think the family of Kathryn Steinle (who he shot and killed) should
file a civil lawsuit for "unlawful death", but not against Zarate. He
has nothing to recover.

The suit should be brought against the city of San Fransisco and the
state of California for at least a billion dollars. I think they should
charge the city and state for causing the unlawful death by maintaining
a "Sanctuary" status and releasing a convicted felon and illegal
immigrant back into the population in direct defiance of federal ICE
demands that he be held for pickup and deportation.

In a civil action the bar is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond
any reasonable doubt".



===

Good plan.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Lousy interpretation of what the law may do. Also, presenting evidence
of a prior criminal history typically is not something the prosecution
can bring up in a criminal case.

The family can certainly sue just about anyone in civil court for just
about anything, particularly wrongful death. Winning may or may not
happen and I am not even sure a judgement against the city would yield
much.
A far easier case would be for Sessions to go after this weasel on
federal gun charges. That comes with real time and it would get him
out of California where ICE gets a shot at him after he gets out of
prison.
Maybe in 20 years we will actually have a secure border and he won't
be back after they deport him ... for the 6th time.


Only problem is it doesn't put any squeeze on San Francisco or
California for being a sanctuary city and state.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:20:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Only problem is it doesn't put any squeeze on San Francisco or
California for being a sanctuary city and state.

As long as the feds are not allowed to use the only real leverage they
have, federal tax dollars, I doubt there is much that can be done. Is
it actually a federal crime to be here illegally? (not a deportable
situation, a crime)
If so, maybe the AJ could pursue obstruction of justice charges. I
really do not know and I am getting on the boat in 10 seconds. I may
look it up later

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/1/2017 2:44 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/1/2017 12:11 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/1/17 11:10 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:50:45 -0500, wrote:

nobody actually enforces
the laws we have on guns.

===

I was pleasantly surprised to read about a couple of recent
convictions in Florida.Â* I believe one was for lying on the purchase
questionaire.

https://www.winknews.com/2017/11/15/fort-myers-woman-found-guilty-lying-firearms-dealers/



Another was for possession by a felon.

https://www.winknews.com/2017/11/13/convicted-fort-myers-felon-receives-15-years-gun-possession/



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



Not that this is the case with your cites, but I wonder sometimes about
purchases of firearms as gifts for other people. I assume if the
ultimate recipient is named on the paperwork, that person is checked out
on the instant check, at least, though I would think the actual
purchaser is also checked out.

I've often thought about that. Without a proper paper trail it seems it
could get very cloudy as to where a gun came from and where it ends up.
For that reason, I'd never purchase a gun and give it as a gift. I
think all transactions should be through a FFL.

If someone wants a gun they can do like the rest of us do ... apply,
undergo a background check ... and become responsible and accountable
for it's location.




And how much does this cost?


In Massachusetts it costs $100 and the permit is good for six years.
$100 again to renew for another 6 years. Free over age of 70.

Other than that, there are no additional charges to purchase a firearm
other than the cost of the firearm itself.




Pretty expensive when someone already owns a firearm, and the receiver also
owns firearms. Here you pay for the background check and the FFL
transfer. So probably $75. We do not require a license to own a forearm
in Calif.