Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Turning Gun Owners Into Felons

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578

    Turning Gun Owners Into Felons

    A new bill would make it a crime to “transfer” your gun to a spouse for more than seven days.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ons-dave-kopel


    A great article that needs to be passed along. Link it, email it, get it to as many as you can. People don't know what is in this "common sense" background check bill. They don't know most of the language comes from Bloomberg's group. They don't realize the true real life everyday consequences of it.

    The media keeps reporting there is overwhelming support for it, but no one I know supports it. Schumer calls this legislation the "sweet spot" of all the proposed legislation, read the article and see why he's so sweet on it.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Public-opinion polls about “universal background checks” for gun sales show widespread support. While President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg talk about “gun sales,” the actual legislation moving through Congress aims to regulate far more than sales. It would turn almost every gun owner into a felon. The trick is that the language under consideration applies not only to sales but also to “transfers,” which are defined to include innocent activities such as letting your spouse borrow your gun for a few hours.


    From the lack of response, it seems that most must be fine with the this legislation.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Well it might help if the bill was actually being debated currently or on the floor. While it is something to keep one's eye on and good to know about, it's kinda hard to go on about a bill that isn't even up for debate yet (kinda like all the times various people put up threads about standard capacity magazine bans that never even made it to the floor).

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I would like to thank you for the article link.

    Now...let's get down to the nitty gritty....per your link:


    "Public-opinion polls about “universal background checks” for gun sales show widespread support."

    Really? Gee whiz, Republicans would have you believe most Americans don't support Universal background Checks. Thank you for the acknowledgment of this reality.


    I would love to see the author actually quote the bill, and not give us their take on the bill.

    Bills always start somewhere, I suppose.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I would like to thank you for the article link.

    Now...let's get down to the nitty gritty....per your link:





    Really? Gee whiz, Republicans would have you believe most Americans don't support Universal background Checks. Thank you for the acknowledgment of this reality.


    I would love to see the author actually quote the bill, and not give us their take on the bill.

    Bills always start somewhere, I suppose.
    I would love to see these polls the media keeps hypeing. I would like to see the actual questions, as asked and how large of a sampling was taken and from were. The keep saying the majority of gun owners support it, yet the real world evidence I have seen greatly disputes this claim. If the majority of those polled came from urban and metropolitan areas I don't think they would necessarily reflect the opinions of those outside those areas.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I haven't seen the poll question yet, but I'd bet money it looks like this:

    Do you agree that firearms should be kept out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill by requiring background checks before all firearm sales?

    The false premise of the question cries out for yeses from the uninformed.

    This is how the question should be phrased to represent reality:

    Considering that background checks do NOT keep firearms out of the hands of those who would unlawfully use them, do you think they should be expanded to cover all transactions, including those between family and friends?

    That question's premises would evoke a huge majority of nos.

    With all the misinformation in the press about the efficacy of background checks, even a simple question asking if one supports "universal background checks" will be typically answered yes based solely on the explicit assumption from the first question that would be implicit in this question.

    The only proper way to ask the question would be to predicate it with a lot of information about what background checks have accomplished (or not accomplished) and what the costs to those involved would be. Were it done in that way, no would honestly and decisively win.

    However, the purpose of these polls is not to sense how the public feel. They are to direct how the public feel.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Well it might help if the bill was actually being debated currently or on the floor. While it is something to keep one's eye on and good to know about, it's kinda hard to go on about a bill that isn't even up for debate yet (kinda like all the times various people put up threads about standard capacity magazine bans that never even made it to the floor).

    You mean this bill that could get a vote as soon as Thursday?


    http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/re...ay_716174.html


    The more people stick their heads in the sand, the better position their posterior is in for what the antis want to do to us.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 04-09-2013 at 04:17 PM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I would like to thank you for the article link.

    Now...let's get down to the nitty gritty....per your link:





    Really? Gee whiz, Republicans would have you believe most Americans don't support Universal background Checks. Thank you for the acknowledgment of this reality.


    I would love to see the author actually quote the bill, and not give us their take on the bill.

    Bills always start somewhere, I suppose.

    Here is a link to the bill, kindly supplied by member georg jetson.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...kground-check)


    I would direct you to sec. 121 which clearly states

    SEC. 121. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.
    The very next section defines transfers.

    The author of the article gave, not his take on the bill, but real world examples of the consequences of passage of this bill.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    Perhaps because the assault on liberty is on so many fronts its impossible to comment or see them all.

    Kind of occupied with Operation Vengeance in Colorado - remove the treasonous sponsors and supporters of the Unconstitutional Acts recently passed by our legislature on party line votes, without any sort of public debate allowed. The thousand plus people that showed up to be heard were all silenced by the Democrats limiting testimony time to just enough for their own side which had little support.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Here is a link to the bill, kindly supplied by member georg jetson.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...kground-check)


    I would direct you to sec. 121 which clearly states



    The very next section defines transfers.

    The author of the article gave, not his take on the bill, but real world examples of the consequences of passage of this bill.


    Thanks for linking me up. do you have your pipe in your hand? Put this in your pipe, and smoke it:
    Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- ``(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren; ``(B) a transfer made from a decedent's estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law; ``(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if--

    Oh my goodness, what's this! We can gift it to our spouse, children, etc. People read these bills before you go spouting off trash like this:
    A new bill would make it a crime to “transfer” your gun to a spouse for more than seven days.
    So, either the author the OP'r quoted is a lying sack of sh*t, or they don't know how to read a Bill; you decide for yourself.


    Beretta92FSLady +1

    Boneheads who believe the OP's quote offered -1
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I would love to see these polls the media keeps hypeing. I would like to see the actual questions, as asked and how large of a sampling was taken and from were. The keep saying the majority of gun owners support it, yet the real world evidence I have seen greatly disputes this claim. If the majority of those polled came from urban and metropolitan areas I don't think they would necessarily reflect the opinions of those outside those areas.
    Please, show us your so-called 'real world evidence.' If you mean Anecdotal, well, you can take your 'real world evidence' and call it whatever you like, but at the end of the day, it's worth less than diddly.

    The Pro-Firearm movement resonates with me. The BS, made-up fear-mongering nonsense is, well, better suited in it's proper place, the FOX News Limpbaugh gutter trash, bottom feeding trench where the lowest common denominator of Conservatives reside.

    Firearm issues are made political by both sides, and I suppose, being many thousands of comments deep into this place, I should accept that both sides are nothing more than bonafide jackasses.

    Really, this thread must be a satire thread. It ought to be in the Social Lounge, where satire threads are birthed to go down in a fiery blaze.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 04-09-2013 at 11:16 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    You mean this bill that could get a vote as soon as Thursday?


    http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/re...ay_716174.html


    The more people stick their heads in the sand, the better position their posterior is in for what the antis want to do to us.
    Oh you mean the bill as discussed here? The most important thing to take out of this is that the vote Thursday will be for cloture, which is to try and move past a filibuster and simply allows for debate on the bill to move forward. After that the bill will still need to be debated and then the actual bill can be voted on.

    And I haven't stuck my head in the sand on this, but this still has a ways to go before it can even get to the house for a vote (assuming they would even be willing to take up the bill to vote on it).

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Here is a link to the bill, kindly supplied by member georg jetson.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...kground-check)


    I would direct you to sec. 121 which clearly states



    The very next section defines transfers.

    The author of the article gave, not his take on the bill, but real world examples of the consequences of passage of this bill.
    Many of the examples in the article are a real possibility. What's not pointed out is the complicated nature of the bill. Indeed the new law may "allow" certain exceptions, but considering the risk, they're rendered irrelevant. It will have a paralyzing effect.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Many of the examples in the article are a real possibility. What's not pointed out is the complicated nature of the bill. Indeed the new law may "allow" certain exceptions, but considering the risk, they're rendered irrelevant. It will have a paralyzing effect.

    Agreed, the nature of the bill is complicated. It will have a paralyzing effect?--do you have access to more information than we?

    Right-fringe fodder, period.

    People, let's be level-headed here. Let's take a balanced approach here, and not get worked up over little notions that formulate in articles, in bills, in your heads. If I only had the ability to bottle fear, I would be a trillionaire.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    A balanced approach? Care to elaborate? It seems I've heard that phrase somewhere...

    Left fringe fodder perhaps.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    A balanced approach? Care to elaborate? It seems I've heard that phrase somewhere...

    Left fringe fodder perhaps.
    Let's keep my reference to a "balanced approach" in context, friend.

    I'm talking about consuming fear-mongering trash, like the link offered by the OP, making claims that are flat-out lies.

    I acknowledge that President Obama is anti-Firearm. I acknowledge that there are Senators, and House members that want to push a Universal Background Check Bill. But let's not get scooped up in fringe right-wing fear-mongering BS here, nonsense about what's been quoted in the OP, that's a flat-out LIE! It's not a half truth, it's not an almost truth, it's a LIE.

    My only conclusion is that it's appealing to the lowest common denominator of the fringe right...or could it be something else.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Normally I would take it to heart... that the author of an article has lied. However, in this case I'll give him/her the benefit of the doubt that they made a mistake. A small mistake considering that most of the examples in the article are valid.

    In your case however, your inconsistencies betray you.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Normally I would take it to heart... that the author of an article has lied. However, in this case I'll give him/her the benefit of the doubt that they made a mistake. A small mistake considering that most of the examples in the article are valid.

    In your case however, your inconsistencies betray you.
    I appreciate your acknowledgment that it's a mistake.

    Don't try to sugar it up, the author either made a mistake or is a lying sack of sh*t.


    My goal is to be inconsistent...i like to keep you guessing
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Thanks for linking me up. do you have your pipe in your hand? Put this in your pipe, and smoke it:


    Oh my goodness, what's this! We can gift it to our spouse, children, etc. People read these bills before you go spouting off trash like this:

    So, either the author the OP'r quoted is a lying sack of sh*t, or they don't know how to read a Bill; you decide for yourself.


    Beretta92FSLady +1

    Boneheads who believe the OP's quote offered -1

    Yes, a person could gift a firearm to their spouse, they however could not loan(i.e. temporarily transfer) them a firearm for more than seven(7) days and the firearm can not leave their property. This is the point the author was making.


    ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--


    ``(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs
    between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee,
    if--
    ``(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs
    in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
    ``(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or
    curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
    ``(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7
    days; and

    It is also worth noting that at this time, you could not even gift a gun to your wife as your marriage is not recognized by the Federal Government. I don't know the State laws were you live, but here in MO such a gift would be perfectly legal as the law stands now. And so you don't think I made the whole "loan" thing up.


    3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--
    ``(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or
    consignment, or other disposition; and
    ``(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm
    for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective
    transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 04-10-2013 at 07:11 AM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  20. #20
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    The only thing I need to know about this bill is that it violates the second amendment. Considering this is a firearms board, what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do certain people not understand?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Yes, a person could gift a firearm to their spouse, they however could not loan(i.e. temporarily transfer) them a firearm for more than seven(7) days and the firearm can not leave their property. This is the point the author was making.




    It is also worth noting that at this time, you could not even gift a gun to your wife as your marriage is not recognized by the Federal Government. I don't know the State laws were you live, but here in MO such a gift would be perfectly legal as the law stands now. And so you don't think I made the whole "loan" thing up.
    I'm in Washington, so, our Sodomite marriage is recognized.

    The Federal Government recognizes our marriage. We have filed taxes as a married couple, all the years we have been together, and never been denied. For a time, I was the unfortunate receiver of SSDI, and the Federal Government recognized our marriage.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I'm in Washington, so, our Sodomite marriage is recognized.
    I was referring to the laws concerning legal firearm transfers. In MO it would be perfectly legal for you to gift a firearm to anyone, not just immediate family members. I was proud to present a friend's son with his first .22 rifle, under the proposed legislation I would be in violation of the law. I don't know if you or your wife have any nieces or nephews you might wish to someday present with such a gift, but under the proposed legislation that is a joy you would never get to experience.

    The Federal Government recognizes our marriage. We have filed taxes as a married couple, all the years we have been together, and never been denied. For a time, I was the unfortunate receiver of SSDI, and the Federal Government recognized our marriage.
    Then I guess there is no reason to get rid of that ridiculous "Defense Of Marriage Act". The truth is, that the Federal Government does not, at this time, recognize the marriage of same sex partners at the Federal level. Your assertion that they do shows the same refusal to recognize the true facts of a situation, as your assertion that the scenarios presented by the author in his article were lies. I will use this knowledge of you to put any future posts by you in perspective, as should all other members.

    Under the legislation proposed by Reid, it would be a violation to loan/transfer a firearm to your spouse for a period of more than seven days, since such a loan would not be considered a "bona fide gift".
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  23. #23
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I was referring to the laws concerning legal firearm transfers. In MO it would be perfectly legal for you to gift a firearm to anyone, not just immediate family members. I was proud to present a friend's son with his first .22 rifle, under the proposed legislation I would be in violation of the law. I don't know if you or your wife have any nieces or nephews you might wish to someday present with such a gift, but under the proposed legislation that is a joy you would never get to experience.
    I have an issue, if the bill block you from presenting that gift. But let's stick to the facts of the bill.

    Then I guess there is no reason to get rid of that ridiculous "Defense Of Marriage Act". The truth is, that the Federal Government does not, at this time, recognize the marriage of same sex partners at the Federal level. Your assertion that they do shows the same refusal to recognize the true facts of a situation, as your assertion that the scenarios presented by the author in his article were lies. I will use this knowledge of you to put any future posts by you in perspective, as should all other members.

    Under the legislation proposed by Reid, it would be a violation to loan/transfer a firearm to your spouse for a period of more than seven days, since such a loan would not be considered a "bona fide gift".

    You can conclude that, but it doesn't survive the smell test. You're assuming what the FED's would consider Bonafide.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I have an issue, if the bill block you from presenting that gift. But let's stick to the facts of the bill.
    That this bill would prevent an aunt or uncle from presenting a firearm as a gift to their niece or nephew is a fact of this bill.

    The language in this bill clear defines who can give the gift( spouse to spouse, parent to child, sibling to sibling,and grandparent to grandchild) and who can't. Under this proposed legislation I could not have given my friend's son his gift and you could not give such a gift to a niece or nephew. Period.



    You can conclude that, but it doesn't survive the smell test. You're assuming what the FED's would consider Bonafide.

    OK, let's just say, for the sake of discussion, you and your wife both have your own vehicle(bought and registered individually). Your wife's car breaks down and it will take 2 weeks to fix. You give your wife your car to use for those two weeks. Did you gift your wife your car or did you loan your wife your car? Does she re-gift it to you at the end of those two weeks?

    This legislation is very clear in it's intent.


    SEC. 121. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background
    check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.
    Bolded by me to highlight

    It is equally clear on what is defined as a transfer.


    ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--
    ``(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or
    consignment, or other disposition; and
    ``(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm
    for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective
    transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.

    It also makes it clear that loans, even between spouses, are not exempted, only gifts. Since it states that transfer refers to loan let us look at that third exemption again.

    ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
    ``(C) a temporary loan of possession that occurs
    between an unlicensed loanor and an unlicensed loanee,
    if--
    ``(i) the temporary loan of possession occurs
    in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed loanor;
    ``(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or
    curtilage during the temporary loan ; and
    ``(iii) the loan has a duration of less than 7
    days; and

    Does that pass your "smell test"?
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    SB 649 must go down in flames. There is not one syllable that is worthy of consideration.

    Please note the below:

    SEC. 123. LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING. (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end-- ``(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.''. (b) Penalty.--Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following: ``(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (q), or (aa) of section 922;''.
    Not good.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •