Bloomberg up to old tricks again. Buying from private sellers off internet sites.

Now Dave Workman lends his voice to challenging Bloomie.

Bloomberg’s new ‘sting’ = same old agenda
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/bloomberg-s-new-sting-same-old-agenda?CID=examiner_alerts_article

The story is changing as it "ferments"

Again we hear of "unlicensed gun dealers" - there is no such thing.

Previous Bloomie reports said that the sellers were willing to sell even when the purchaser said he wouldn't qualify.

Now the wording is "willing to sell to people who likely couldn't pass a background check."
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-coa...olated-law-20111215,0,2162922.story?track=rss

Nothing has changed with Bloomie's tactics. He is vague, unsubstantiated, accusatory, scare monger who spins everything to suit his on agenda.

If sellers break the law - report them.

If (straw?) purchasers break the law - report them

BTW - Urhonor Bloomberg - how about you ID the Virginia investigators so that we may properly reward them in accordance with Virginia law

First things first.

First, Bloomers is a politician and therefore a known and proven liar.

Second, Bloomers is a criminal for authorizing these straw purchases.

Third, Bloomers should be prosecuted under the federal Organized Crime statutes for being the head of this crime organization.

Fourth, Bloomers will NOT be prosecuted because he will claim in court that he was only doing his “AG Holder” impersonation.

Why is nobody mentioning the Virginia law that makes doing this stuff a crime?

No, not the law about selling guns to criminals - the law about coming to Virginia to pull this, or sending folks to Virginia to do this. IIRC even moving electrons to Virginia to do this was included as a crime.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Why is nobody mentioning the Virginia law that makes doing this stuff a crime?

No, not the law about selling guns to criminals - the law about coming to Virginia to pull this, or sending folks to Virginia to do this. IIRC even moving electrons to Virginia to do this was included as a crime.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Probably because Virginia is the closest FREE state that still believes in the Bill of Rights.

skidmark said:

IIRC even moving electrons to Virginia to do this was included as a crime.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I doubt it Skid. There was a big to do years ago about calling another state and recording it in Va. Some states that required two party consent...and the phone companies that prohibited recording without a tone, tried to push it.

The end result as I recall, was if it was legal where the call originated, it was legal.
I'd like to know if that's changed.

I'd be more than happy to sell a gun to someone who admitted to me that he couldn't pass a background check - it isn't the transfer of title that's illegal, it's the transfer of possession. A convicted felon can own all the guns he can afford, he just can't be in a position to "exercise dominion and control" over them. So like grylnsmn said, if they want the gun shipped to an FFL, that's fine, it can sit there with that FFL until they can pass the background check, I reckon. If it's an in-state, face-to-face transaction, and they present a governmentally issued identification document to show that they really are a resident of Virginia, and are willing to sign my bill of sale form (which functions as a sworn statement to the effect that they are legally eligible to be in possession of a firearm), that's about as well as I can do.

The fact that someone tells me they don't know whether they can pass a background check, by itself, has nothing to do with whether they're entitled to be in possession of a firearm. People have so little understanding of this confusing area of law that lots of folks really have no idea whether they could get through that wringer. Lots of folks think they can't, and will in fact be denied, even though they should be able to, and there's no legal reason why they can't (people convicted of domestic battery in a Virginia Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court are generally not persons who are guilty of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", for example, or people who pleaded nolo contendere to a felony prior to a certain date). The belief that one is unable to pass a background check, by itself, is not a barrier to that person's acquisition of a firearm.

If, on the other hand, he tells you he just got out of Western State Hospital where he'd been undergoing treatment pursuant to a court order finding that he was not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, well, that's a different story.

A guy came to me not too long ago wanting to buy a silenced .22 semiauto pistol, had already placed the order and wanted to pick it up, but the sheriff's office had turned down his request for NFA certification. He wanted me to go into the circuit court and get his gun rights restored. It turned out that he had an extensive history of both voluntary and involuntary hospitalization for psychological problems, some of which involved "violent and/or suicidal ideations". I didn't take that case. I have been successful in other cases, though, where the client couldn't pass a background check because they'd been subjected to an order requiring their detention for psychological observation. The people who do the checks apparently can't tell the difference between "observation" and "treatment". So these folks were "watched" for the requisite 48 hours and then released. No problem as to firearms possession. Can't pass a background check.

user said:

I'd be more than happy to sell a gun to someone who admitted to me that he couldn't pass a background check - it isn't the transfer of title that's illegal, it's the transfer of possession. A convicted felon can own all the guns he can afford, he just can't be in a position to "exercise dominion and control" over them. So like grylnsmn said, if they want the gun shipped to an FFL, that's fine, it can sit there with that FFL until they can pass the background check, I reckon. If it's an in-state, face-to-face transaction, and they present a governmentally issued identification document to show that they really are a resident of Virginia, and are willing to sign my bill of sale form (which functions as a sworn statement to the effect that they are legally eligible to be in possession of a firearm), that's about as well as I can do.

The fact that someone tells me they don't know whether they can pass a background check, by itself, has nothing to do with whether they're entitled to be in possession of a firearm. People have so little understanding of this confusing area of law that lots of folks really have no idea whether they could get through that wringer. Lots of folks think they can't, and will in fact be denied, even though they should be able to, and there's no legal reason why they can't (people convicted of domestic battery in a Virginia Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court are generally not persons who are guilty of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", for example, or people who pleaded nolo contendere to a felony prior to a certain date). The belief that one is unable to pass a background check, by itself, is not a barrier to that person's acquisition of a firearm.

If, on the other hand, he tells you he just got out of Western State Hospital where he'd been undergoing treatment pursuant to a court order finding that he was not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, well, that's a different story.

A guy came to me not too long ago wanting to buy a silenced .22 semiauto pistol, had already placed the order and wanted to pick it up, but the sheriff's office had turned down his request for NFA certification. He wanted me to go into the circuit court and get his gun rights restored. It turned out that he had an extensive history of both voluntary and involuntary hospitalization for psychological problems, some of which involved "violent and/or suicidal ideations". I didn't take that case. I have been successful in other cases, though, where the client couldn't pass a background check because they'd been subjected to an order requiring their detention for psychological observation. The people who do the checks apparently can't tell the difference between "observation" and "treatment". So these folks were "watched" for the requisite 48 hours and then released. No problem as to firearms possession. Can't pass a background check.

Click to expand...

I guess some look at the wording of the laws would be in order. Does it say the dealer must perform a background check ( I belive this is so) or does it say the transferee must pass a background check?

Whether or not you 'think' you won't pass a background check doesn't matter, methinks.

Sent using tapatalk

Pre 1968

So, where was all the horrible, gun-related crime prior to 1968?

Seems America got along quite fine with interstate commerce of guns.

The good old days, indeed.

Repeater said:

So, where was all the horrible, gun-related crime prior to 1968?

Seems America got along quite fine with interstate commerce of guns.

The good old days, indeed.

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was part of President Johnson's Great Society series of programs and was spurred in passage by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. The deaths of the latter two men occurred after the Act's introduction as a bill, but before it had been passed by either the House or Senate. In early June 1968, a tie vote in the House Judiciary Committee halted the bill's passage.[1] On reconsideration nine days later, the bill was passed by the committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee similarly brought the bill to a temporary halt, but as in the House, it was passed on reconsideration.[2]

1. "Gun Control Bill Blocked In House; Panel Deadlocks on Johnson Plan to Curb Rifle Sales - New Vote Is Scheduled", The New York Times. June 12, 1968. Page 1. Retrieved March 16, 2011.
2. "Senate Due To Act Today; House Unit Votes Gun Bill, But Senate Panel Delays It House Committee Vote", The New York Times. June 21, 1968. Page 1. Retrieved March 16, 2011.

TFred

Good point!

Baked on Grease said:

I guess some look at the wording of the laws would be in order. Does it say the dealer must perform a background check ( I belive this is so) or does it say the transferee must pass a background check?

Whether or not you 'think' you won't pass a background check doesn't matter, methinks.

Sent using tapatalk

Click to expand...

Right. It's illegal for a dealer to sell to a person whom he has reason to believe is ineligible to be in possession - and the denial creates documented "reason to believe". All they can do to the prospective purchaser is charge him with making a false statement under oath on the official form. That requires more than "reason to believe", it requires probable cause.

TFred said:

From Wikipedia:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was part of President Johnson's Great Society series of programs and was spurred in passage by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. The deaths of the latter two men occurred after the Act's introduction as a bill, but before it had been passed by either the House or Senate. In early June 1968, a tie vote in the House Judiciary Committee halted the bill's passage.[1] On reconsideration nine days later, the bill was passed by the committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee similarly brought the bill to a temporary halt, but as in the House, it was passed on reconsideration.[2]

Click to expand...

I was not aware of how closely related, temporally, the GCA of 1968 was with the assassinations of two very prominent civil rights activists. Traditionally, civil rights movements lean to the left, while those squashing the rights tend towards the right. The reverse tends to be true when the civil right in question involves our RKBA.

This raises some admittedly conspiratorial-sounding questions concerning in whose best interests at the time would it have been to further gun control in our country?

Such shooters are often just angry nutjobs, like Hinkley, Loughner, and Cho. Sometimes they've been pushed over the edge by subversive groups who find and groom some unsuspecting near-nutjob to do their dirty work.

I'd very much like to see someone enter into an agreement to purchase a gun to one of the Bloomberg minions. There is absolutely no problem with that. The problem is in the delivery, i.e., transfer of possession. But entering into the agreement for purchase and sale is a binding contract. So when the minion says, "give me the gun now", the seller can say, "ok, demonstrate that you're a Virginia resident, or give me the name, address, and BATFE registration number of an FFL to whom I can have the gun shipped." When the minion balks, file suit against him for breach of contract. Heh, heh, heh.