Dave Workman makes a mistake?

EMNofSeattle · Jan 11, 2013

So Dave Workman is on John Carlson's radio show as I'm writing this. 06:30 Pacific Standard Time January 11th, 2013

Dave Workman asserted that if one sells a gun to his buddy who then uses the gun in a hold-up that you will go to jail for selling it to the robber.

The other thing is, and Dave I know you keep an eye on the forums...

They were discussing a private sale in the context of an armslist type deal, that if you buy a gun from "midnight joe" in a parking lot in Woodinville, that seal is illegal, and that it must go through a background check.

I see nothing in the law that requires this is both parties reside in the same state. the "Midnight Joe" transaction would be perfectly legal as long as both parties are within the law, maybe Dave left something out, but it seemed he was saying an online sale such as conducted through armslist is illegal, which is not nessecarily the case.

you can in fact, legally purchase a firearm from midnight joe as long as you are not a prohibited person and have no reason to suspect Midnight Joe's wares are stolen. likewise as long as midnight joe doesn't know and shouldn't know if you are a prohibited person or not he's not breaking any laws either unless he's in the business earning a substantial portion of his livliehood from firearm sales.

Maybe I misheard what he said or got something wrong, but that's what I took away from listening.

Dave Workman · Jan 11, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
So Dave Workman is on John Carlson's radio show as I'm writing this. 06:30 Pacific Standard Time January 11th, 2013

Dave Workman asserted that if one sells a gun to his buddy who then uses the gun in a hold-up that you will go to jail for selling it to the robber.

The other thing is, and Dave I know you keep an eye on the forums...

They were discussing a private sale in the context of an armslist type deal, that if you buy a gun from "midnight joe" in a parking lot in Woodinville, that seal is illegal, and that it must go through a background check.

I see nothing in the law that requires this is both parties reside in the same state. the "Midnight Joe" transaction would be perfectly legal as long as both parties are within the law, maybe Dave left something out, but it seemed he was saying an online sale such as conducted through armslist is illegal, which is not nessecarily the case.

you can in fact, legally purchase a firearm from midnight joe as long as you are not a prohibited person and have no reason to suspect Midnight Joe's wares are stolen. likewise as long as midnight joe doesn't know and shouldn't know if you are a prohibited person or not he's not breaking any laws either unless he's in the business earning a substantial portion of his livliehood from firearm sales.

Maybe I misheard what he said or got something wrong, but that's what I took away from listening.

Yes, you competely misunderstood.
We were talking about Biden's proposal for "universal background checks" and I was explaining that this would not prevent bad guys from doing illegal deals, using the mythical "Midnight Joe's gun sales" as a metaphor. The thrust of the conversation is that background checks do not prevent criminals from getting guns. Carlson is all over that this morning.

As for selling a gun to someone you know is prohibited, which is what the question was all about as I understood it, and he gets caught in the commission of a crime and that gun traces back to you, you are in big legal trouble, as we saw with that recent case in Seattle involving the guy who sold a gun on-line to a Canadian resident, clearly knowing the sale was illegal. That Canadian subsequently drove back to the great lakes area and murdered his former girlfriend.

If you were listening closely, we discussed how it is LEGAL under existing law, to do a private sale or gifting to someone without a background check. You just can't do the sale to someone you KNOW is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Now, as I explained to Carlson, if you were listening closely, I did buy a handgun on-line via another forum, from a man in Oregon a couple of years ago. Perfectly legal because we went through FFLs in Oregon and here in Washington. My FFL did the NICS check, I paid for the gun and everyone was squeaky clean.

But the thrust of Carlson's thing this morning is the background check and its inability to prevent bad guys from doing illegal gun transactions.

EMNofSeattle · Jan 11, 2013

Dave Workman said:
Yes, you competely misunderstood.
We were talking about Biden's proposal for "universal background checks" and I was explaining that this would not prevent bad guys from doing illegal deals, using the mythical "Midnight Joe's gun sales" as a metaphor. The thrust of the conversation is that background checks do not prevent criminals from getting guns. Carlson is all over that this morning.

As for selling a gun to someone you know is prohibited, which is what the question was all about as I understood it, and he gets caught in the commission of a crime and that gun traces back to you, you are in big legal trouble, as we saw with that recent case in Seattle involving the guy who sold a gun on-line to a Canadian resident, clearly knowing the sale was illegal. That Canadian subsequently drove back to the great lakes area and murdered his former girlfriend.

If you were listening closely, we discussed how it is LEGAL under existing law, to do a private sale or gifting to someone without a background check. You just can't do the sale to someone you KNOW is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Now, as I explained to Carlson, if you were listening closely, I did buy a handgun on-line via another forum, from a man in Oregon a couple of years ago. Perfectly legal because we went through FFLs in Oregon and here in Washington. My FFL did the NICS check, I paid for the gun and everyone was squeaky clean.

But the thrust of Carlson's thing this morning is the background check and its inability to prevent bad guys from doing illegal gun transactions.

ah, Got it, maybe I need to double the coffee in the morning so I can understand better

I knew the title of the thread would get your attention. Thanks for clearing that up dave!

Dave Workman · Jan 11, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
ah, Got it, maybe I need to double the coffee in the morning so I can understand better

I knew the title of the thread would get your attention. Thanks for clearing that up dave!

MY PLEASURE. Now, perhaps you'd like to explain to everyone here.. WHAT THE HELL IS A NORMAL PERSON DOING, BEING AWAKE AT THAT HOUR TO LISTEN TO ME AND CARLSON???!!!!!

John and I have an excuse...we're crazy.

:lol:

EMNofSeattle · Jan 11, 2013

Hey the best radio programming takes place between 10 pm and 7am. That's a scientific fact.

gogodawgs · Jan 11, 2013

dave workman said:
my pleasure. Now, perhaps you'd like to explain to everyone here.. what the hell is a normal person doing, being awake at that hour to listen to me and carlson???!!!!!

john and i have an excuse...we're crazy.

:lol:

qft

badkarma · Jan 11, 2013

I didn't turn him on till 6:45 so I missed it. When can we expect you back so we can call in and provide listener support?

hermannr · Jan 11, 2013

Dave Workman said:
As for selling a gun to someone you know is prohibited, which is what the question was all about as I understood it, and he gets caught in the commission of a crime and that gun traces back to you, you are in big legal trouble, as we saw with that recent case in Seattle involving the guy who sold a gun on-line to a Canadian resident, clearly knowing the sale was illegal. That Canadian subsequently drove back to the great lakes area and murdered his former girlfriend.

.

For those that did not catch the highlighted area...KNOWINGLY is the key word. If you sell a gun to someone that cannot legally possess a firearm, and you KNOW that they are a "prohibited person", that is where you can get in trouble. Why? because you just did something that was not legal and you become part of the crime.

If a person sells a gun to a prohibited person, but he does not KNOW that person is prohibited (the guy lied to you)...then there is no legal jeopurdy.,

hermannr · Jan 11, 2013

Dave Workman said:
MY PLEASURE. Now, perhaps you'd like to explain to everyone here.. WHAT THE HELL IS A NORMAL PERSON DOING, BEING AWAKE AT THAT HOUR TO LISTEN TO ME AND CARLSON???!!!!!

John and I have an excuse...we're crazy.

:lol:

Back in the days when I actually worked for a living, I was already at work at 05:00...:0

amlevin · Jan 12, 2013

hermannr said:
For those that did not catch the highlighted area...KNOWINGLY is the key word. If you sell a gun to someone that cannot legally possess a firearm, and you KNOW that they are a "prohibited person", that is where you can get in trouble. Why? because you just did something that was not legal and you become part of the crime.

If a person sells a gun to a prohibited person, but he does not KNOW that person is prohibited (the guy lied to you)...then there is no legal jeopurdy.,

That defense didn't work all that well for the guy who sold the TEC-DC9 to Klebold and Harris in their prep for the Columbine shooting spree. Pizza shop employee Mark Manes made that claim even though he KNEW they were too young to legally purchase the weapon.

As it's always said, "Ignorance is no defense".

Just think, how many here state that they don't don't/won't provide ID or CPL prior to a private purchase.

Like it or not, people might just get resigned to the fact that there WILL be more controls on the transfer of firearms. Background checks, use of "transfer agents" just like when buying/selling houses, and yes, even registration.

What the "Biden Group" is now doing is collecting as large a list of "solutions" as they can. When it finally goes to Congress there will be a lot of give and take and in order to stave off more unpalatable provisions registration, background checks on ALL gun transfers, will be most likely.

Don't like it? Just remember the old saying "Wish in one hand and crap in the other. Any guess as to which one will fill first?"

sudden valley gunner · Jan 12, 2013

amlevin said:
T
As it's always said, "Ignorance is no defense".

This is a misleading much accepted saying we need to change back to what it was originally meant to mean.

It wasn't meant as and excuse or defense against malum in se, it was a perfectly acceptable excuse and defense for malum prohibitum laws.

All jurors must become fully informed jurors and then be willing to exercise that judgment even when the defendants actions are personally disagreeable with you.

John Hardin · Jan 12, 2013

hermannr said:
For those that did not catch the highlighted area...KNOWINGLY is the key word. If you sell a gun to someone that cannot legally possess a firearm, and you KNOW that they are a "prohibited person", that is where you can get in trouble.

I believe that the statute also prohibits transfer to someone you "reasonably suspect" is a prohibited person, but I can't find it to cite, sorry.

EMNofSeattle · Jan 12, 2013

John Hardin said:
I believe that the statute also prohibits transfer to someone you "reasonably suspect" is a prohibited person, but I can't find it to cite, sorry.

18 USC 922. Unlawful acts

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to
sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or
ammunition to any person knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe that
such person—

JoeSparky · Jan 12, 2013

And convictions have been obtained under the theory that the selling person SHOULD have known that the individual buying was prohibited in spite of the law being worded otherwise!

Dave Workman makes a mistake?

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

Dave Workman

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

Dave Workman

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran

badkarma

Regular Member

hermannr

Regular Member

hermannr

Regular Member

amlevin

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

John Hardin

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

JoeSparky

Centurion