Can you spot the felon?

[MrsGungho]

I love when I leave for a bit and my point is proven.

Thank You for looking up the facts dz.

such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the en- hancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

the intent is not there in these circumstances and any member of the government is going to have a hard time proving intent. Remember we don't have to prove innocence, they have to prove guilt.

 

[jbombelli]

I can take my own guns down to the gun show and sell them all day long without being a dealer. It just makes me a guy selling off his collection. Nothing more. The number doesn't matter. I could take 100 guns down there that I already owned and sell them off. I'm still not a "dealer" if I do that. I'm just a guy selling off a bunch of guns. Why? I'm not regularly engaged in buying and selling guns as a business.


Now, I'm sure the ATF would view it differently if I bought 2 guns this week and sold them next week, bought 3 more the week after that, and sold them right away, and repeated this kind of pattern. In THAT case I would be a "dealer", regularly engaged in buying and selling guns.



edited to add: I don't actually own 100 guns. I just used that as an example.

 

[downzero]

Jbombelli,

I actually am in full agreement with you, but I might not be on the jury. I hope for the sake of our republic that I AM on the jury if one of us is ever prosecuted for this sort of thing. But if I'm not, I can definitely see the possibility of the same facts reaching the opposite conclusion.

I love when I leave for a bit and my point is proven.

Thank You for looking up the facts dz.



the intent is not there in these circumstances and any member of the government is going to have a hard time proving intent. Remember we don't have to prove innocence, they have to prove guilt.

That's true. But my point is still legitimate. The law is somewhat vague on this issue, and if a jury doesn't buy your story, you could be found guilty. The ambiguity of the law on this issue makes it impossible to find a bright line.

This is why the act of writing laws is tough! Because some issues don't lend themselves to bright line rules, and it is precisely this sort of subjectivity that leads to absurd conclusions sometimes.

Edit...
I do want to point out one more thing, though. Profit is necessary in order for the statute to call you a "dealer" at all. So even if you sold 10,000 guns this year, if you could show that you never made a profit on even a single one, it wouldn't matter why or how you were selling them. So whereas one poster said previously that profit doesn't matter, I actually disagree there. Whether you are making a profit is one part of the analysis as to whether you are a "dealer" under the definition. If you're not making a profit, there's nothing more to analyze--you're not engaged in the business. If you are making a profit, the analysis proceeds to the next step.

 

[SavageEagle]

DZ, if it were against the law and the ATF had ANY problem with these guys at gun shows selling their privately owned guns, they would be shut down on the spot. You don't think the ATF isn't walking around IN FORCE at every show? Nothing these guys selling guns at those shows did was illegal or they would have been arrested at the show.

I'm sorry you can't get past this simple FACT, but it is a fact and you need to get over it.

 

[PatriotPride]

You can't reason with someone who has their mind made up.

 

[level.eleven]

i dont think you are on our side at all

Exactly. He's representing the state in this trial.

 

[downzero]

DZ, if it were against the law and the ATF had ANY problem with these guys at gun shows selling their privately owned guns, they would be shut down on the spot. You don't think the ATF isn't walking around IN FORCE at every show? Nothing these guys selling guns at those shows did was illegal or they would have been arrested at the show.

I'm sorry you can't get past this simple FACT, but it is a fact and you need to get over it.

It takes time to make a case. You don't think that illegal transactions take place before the government makes an arrest?

Whether any of those transactions were illegal is a question of fact based upon statutory definitions that have already been posted here. It has been demonstrated that the answer is still "maybe." It is not reasonable to conclude that the answer is "no" given the data in that video.

You may very well be correct that nothing illegal happened there, but that is not obvious from the facts in that video.

And, for what it's worth, I haven't made up my mind about anything. I've merely pointed out that the facts displayed in that video bring up an important question about whether the law was violated.

That same assclown from the Brady Campaign admitted on TV the other day that the guy who shot all those people at Virginia Tech purchased his guns illegally when he lied on the 4473 that he filled out prior to passing a NICS check. Another important counterpoint to the Brady Campaign's "background checks for every gun sale" point is right there in that statement--background checks cannot, and do not prevent every prohibited possessor from acquiring a gun. If all it takes is a check of "no" in the box on the 4473 to complete the transaction to a prohibited possessor, the background check itself has done nothing to prevent that person from acquiring a gun.

And while I'd prefer that none of this exist, the Supreme Court to declare the entire Gun Control Act a facially overbroad application of the commerce clause, and effectively dissolve the ATF in a single swoop, I don't see that happening, so we're stuck with the laws we have, rather than the ones we want or prefer.

 

[SavageEagle]

And while I'd prefer that none of this exist, the Supreme Court to declare the entire Gun Control Act a facially overbroad application of the commerce clause, and effectively dissolve the ATF in a single swoop, I don't see that happening, so we're stuck with the laws we have, rather than the ones we want or prefer.

I would be my life-savings that the only one who broke the law was the guy making the video. He was an out of state resident buying guns illegally.

As for the quoted part, if you think laws need to be changed, do something about it instead of talking about it. It take the PEOPLE standing up against something for something to change. People can talk all they want and nothing will get done. But when every gun owner in America stands up and says NO MORE, things get done.

It's just a shame we as gun owners can't stand together on something as simple as the subject as this thread, well, if we don't stand together we will surely hang separately.

 

[downzero]

I would be my life-savings that the only one who broke the law was the guy making the video. He was an out of state resident buying guns illegally.

As for the quoted part, if you think laws need to be changed, do something about it instead of talking about it. It take the PEOPLE standing up against something for something to change. People can talk all they want and nothing will get done. But when every gun owner in America stands up and says NO MORE, things get done.

It's just a shame we as gun owners can't stand together on something as simple as the subject as this thread, well, if we don't stand together we will surely hang separately.

1. Actually I didn't hear any evidence of him violating the law. When he was in Virginia, where he presumably resides, he purchased a gun. When he was in other states, he had other people with him. I'm not sure anything illegal ever went on in that video.

2. I actually don't think all gun owners need to agree on everything. I think it's important to have free and unfettered debate about these issues so that we can come to the right conclusions. My reading of Mill's On Liberty suggests that this is why we have free speech in this country, and among the reasons why it's so important that we do.

 

[88GT]

That's true. It'd be up for a jury to decide.

In my opinion, however, setting up a retail front and selling guns from your "private" collection is likely dealing. Constitutional questions of whether the Gun Control Act of 1968 is constitutional or not aside, what I observed in most of those cases appears to be unlicensed dealing to me.

Especially the last one, where the guy appeared to have bought it recently and admitted that he was 1. retired and 2. making a profit on the sale.

One of the problems, as I see it, is that we as gun owners talk about how there are sufficient laws in place to deter crime, but then we ignore instances like this, where it's obvious that some shady transactions are going on.

The only one that wasn't creepy to me was the guy selling his gun from his back. That stuff happens at gun shows all the time.

Selling a few guns a year from your private collection is one thing, but selling them for a profit at a retail table is a totally different story, in my opinion and based upon my knowledge of the relevant statutes.

And for the record, I don't think what I observed in that video ought to be illegal, but I do think that what I saw there is/was potentially illegal.

That's perfectly fine and you're free to think whatever you want.

Let's see what the ATF says about the definition of dealer, shall we?





The whole document is available here:
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

Since we now have the facts here, is a guy with a table full of guns at the gun show a "dealer"?

The answer has to at least be "maybe" if not "yes." I would go with "maybe." But the answer cannot be "no."

Profit is necessary but not sufficient. I get that.

But it should be obvious to those of us on the "right" side of the law that this propaganda would be much harder to produce if questionable, shady transactions didn't go on.

Buying a gun is not like buying a gallon of milk or a dozen eggs. It should be, but it's not. And the Brady Campaign will continue to make propaganda against this unless we make it very clear that these transactions are legal and rare, because unlicensed dealing is a violation of the Gun Control Act.

Otherwise, the Brady morons will just continue scaring the sheeple by making these videos, which are really cheap to make and make a very strong impact on non-gun owners, even those who are not politically hostile to our gun rights.

You're forgetting to include one very pertinent point in your attempt to paint all private sellers as potential dealers: the "reasonable" standard. What would a reasonable man see in the situation (whatever it may be)? Reasonable people know the difference between someone who's selling his personal collection (even if he makes an insane profit) and someone who's "set up shop" (even if said "shop" isn't brick and mortar). Reasonable people recognize the spirit and intent of the law even if the letter of the law can be twisted to make any private sale a potential violation.

I think that this is in large part why attempts to prosecute on such flimsy "evidence" have been relatively non-existent. As someone else mentioned, if they really thought they could get the convictions, they'd be all over that like white on rice

 

[theweakerbrother]

"Expanded stock, 30 round clip!"

 

[Lex Concord]

I think it's pretty obvious what someone is doing when they have a case full of guns on a table at a gun show.

Yes, attempting to sell guns. Any further conclusion requires assumptions to be made on your part.

If Jay Leno loses a huge lawsuit and his job and has to start selling cars to "support himself", cars which he has collected over many years, does that make him an auto dealer?

A large personal collection for sale, no matter the product, does not a dealer make.

There is no way to tell from a video snippet, except where explicitly stated, for how long or for what purpose or intent any arm was purchased.

Nothing on the video is obvious except the explicit statements and actions recorded therein.

Agree with it or not, the law is the law, but I think you are "convicting" on your gut here, and not on the facts as they have been presented.

I guarantee sufficient ATFE agents and local law enforcements have seen the tapes by now. If it needs to get in front of a jury, it has or will. It would be interesting to know if any prosecutions occurred because of these tapes.

 

[downzero]

Yes, attempting to sell guns. Any further conclusion requires assumptions to be made on your part.

If Jay Leno loses a huge lawsuit and his job and has to start selling cars to "support himself", cars which he has collected over many years, does that make him an auto dealer?

Not by itself, no.

But if he was buying and selling repeatedly, rather than liquidating his collection, it's quite possible that someone might call that "dealing."

With guns the line is likely to be much more conservative because without it, the GCA is powerless.

 

[IndyMonkey]

But if he was buying and selling repeatedly, rather than liquidating his collection, it's quite possible that someone might call that "dealing."

You have argued all night about this very point right here. You ASSume that these guys were doing that.

 

[chrisheacock]

Jbombelli,
I actually am in full agreement with you, but I might not be on the jury. I hope for the sake of our republic that I AM on the jury if one of us is ever prosecuted for this sort of thing. But if I'm not, I can definitely see the possibility of the same facts reaching the opposite conclusion.

This sounds like even though you are following the letter of the law, and honestly not dealing (in the sense of turning over firearms regularly and making a profit thus supporting yourself financially) that you wouldn't sell guns at a gun show because you're afraid they might make a case against you.

Am I reading that right? Is this only something related to guns, because it seems to me that if you really take that viewpoint, you will have a hard time doing *anything* *ever*; fearing possible repercussions if your actions are misconstrued and you are charged with a crime you didn't commit.

I'm all for playing it safe and avoiding questionable scenarios whenever possible, but you seem to be arguing that everyone at a gun show is a dealer, or at the very least *could* be perceived as one.

So what are you advocating? Sure, these guys could probably be charged with any number of felonies if assumptions are made, but what are you suggesting should be done?

 

[45calibre]

woah woah woah, hold on just a minute.

isnt it illegal to buy guns out of state like that? and he recorded himself? where the ATF?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It is illegal to sell a handgun to someone who does not reside in the state you reside in. It is illegal to sell a long gun to someone who does not reside in a state in a state that does not border the state you live in. This applies to all sellers - not just FFLs.

It is illegal to purchase a handgun in a state you don't reside in. It is illegal to purchase a long gun in a state that does not border the state you live in. This applies to all purchases - not just those through an FFL.

These laws are not over-reaching; they are interstate commerce transactions that Congress has rightfully regulated.

This kid commited fraud and a number of other weapons purchase violations in order to induce the sellers to sell him the weapons illegally. All felonies. The first seller should have refused to sell the weapon when the kid was unable to produce an ID.

I for one hope they lock him up for a very long time, to show what happens when you break the law.

 

[IndyMonkey]

The first seller should have refused to sell the weapon when the kid was unable to produce an ID.

I for one hope they lock him up for a very long time, to show what happens when you break the law.

There isnt a law that says you must check ID. To me if you say you are from Indiana, Im going to believe you. The felon was the kid when he lied that he was from Ohio.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

There isnt a law that says you must check ID. To me if you say you are from Indiana, Im going to believe you. The felon was the kid when he lied that he was from Ohio.

That's what I said. Let me restate. The kid commited several felonies. Although ID is not required, it is illegal to sell a handgun to someone who does not reside in the state of purchase. It is also illegal to sell a long gun to a buyer who does not reside in a state bordering the buyer's state of residence. The seller should have been broken off the sale when the buyer was unable to produce ID.

 

[E5RANGER375]

woah woah woah, hold on just a minute.
where the ATF?

why would they wanna arrest and prosecute a fellow gun grabber?