Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Examiner.com: Utah appeals court rules typo on gun purchase form not a crime

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Please CLICK the "subscribe" button at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gu...rm-not-a-crime

    SNIP

    The question of whether or not gun registration violates the Second Amendment may be settled by the courts in the future. But the recent use of prosecutorial discretion to prosecute a Utah man for an innocent and non-material mistake on gun dealer transfer forms demonstrates the danger of decentralized gun registration by way of ATF Form 4473, especially since the court of appeals in this case affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the charge only because "an alien registration number is not 'information required for a background check' as contemplated by Utah Code section 76-10-526(4)(b)." State v. Kidus Chane Yohannes, 2009 UT App 270, P11 (Utah Ct. App. 2009).

    In other words, if Mr. Yohannes had made a error in writing his driver license number on the ATF Form 4473, the prosecutor would have gotten the green light to proceed on the fraud charges, even though the prosecutor admitted fraud charges would likely fail at trial.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Please CLICK the "subscribe" button at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gu...rm-not-a-crime

    SNIP

    The question of whether or not gun registration violates the Second Amendment may be settled by the courts in the future.* But the recent use of prosecutorial discretion to prosecute a Utah man for an innocent and non-material mistake on gun dealer transfer forms demonstrates the danger of decentralized gun registration by way of ATF Form 4473, especially since the court of appeals in this case affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the charge only because "an alien registration number is not 'information required for a background check' as contemplated by Utah Code section 76-10-526(4)(b)."* State v. Kidus Chane Yohannes, 2009 UT App 270, P11 (Utah Ct. App. 2009).*

    In other words, if Mr. Yohannes had made a error in writing his driver license number on the ATF Form 4473, the prosecutor would have gotten the green light to proceed on the fraud charges, even though the prosecutor admitted fraud charges would likely fail at trial.*
    I for one prefer court rulings to be narrow. A broad ruling in this case may have been nice, but in too many other cases, a broad ruling can have unintended consequences, and in my opinion is unethical judicially.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    Those who look at this ruling should also look at the actual charges involved. This was NOT an innocent mistake,it was an intentional deception.

    http://resource.uvu.edu/pdf/09-07/09..._purchases.pdf



  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    Those who look at this ruling should also look at the actual charges involved. This was NOT an innocent mistake,it was an intentional deception.

    http://resource.uvu.edu/pdf/09-07/09..._purchases.pdf
    I don;t get what you are saying - who cares what alien registration number he used? Neither number would have disqualified him from buying the gun. What deception?

    I have dealt with the old INS before re alien stuff - very confusing bunch they are, always sending you numbers and information with little or no explanation, employees contraict each other all the time, etc



Posting Permissions

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