Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheBSQ t1_iu27fag wrote

Reply to comment by tofucaketl in Deputy arrested for illegally selling guns used in Roxborough HS shooting by dc122186

It’s a dumb tautology.

I can go legally buy a gun, then commit a crime and then I’m not longer a legal owner. But being “illegal” had no effect on my ability to get a gun because it happened after.

The point is, when that person originally bought the gun, did the seller know of any legal reason to not do that sale?

I can go into a store with the full intent of legally reselling it, and sure if you could read my mind you’d know that means it’s not a legal sale.

But since mind-reading is not possible, all you can go on is the known information. and per that known information, absolutely nothing would distinguish me from a legal purchaser.

So if the difference between a legal and illegal purchase depends on mind reading, it’s not really a difference in any practical sense. A difference without a distinction - that’s the saying, right?

And you know that.

And I’m sure you also know that many other countries have figured out that because mindreading isn’t real you need to add multiple other steps to dissuade that type of situation from occurring, including much more involved pre-purchase requirements, and much more thorough post purchase tracking and registration to make it so that it’s just too big of a pain in the ass to get a gun if you’re just going to turn around and sell it. And too likely that it’ll get traced back to you and some illegal sale you were involved with should the sketchy person you sold it to use it in a crime.

And you also know that while it’s kind of a pain in the ass, if you’re legal, and you have no intent on an illegal resale or to use it in a crime, other than it kinda being a pain, it doesn’t prevent legal ownership.

So the trade off is we can cut down on illegal ownership by making legal purchasing and owning a bit more annoying and require a bit more responsibility.

Or, we can keep legal purchasing super simple and accept that illegal ownership and increased gun violence are a cost of that ease and simplicity.

7

Argentum1078682 t1_iu2agyi wrote

>So the trade off is we can cut down on illegal ownership by making legal purchasing and owning a bit more annoying and require a bit more responsibility.

>Or, we can keep legal purchasing super simple and accept that illegal ownership and increased gun violence are a cost of that ease and simplicity.

This is a false dichotomy and relies on the premise that the ONLY way to reduce gun violence is to make things harder for legal owners.

Start by vigorously enforcing illegal possession cases before making things harder for the vast majority of gun owners who don't shoot people (99%+)

2

OrdinaryCorrect3161 t1_iu2vn64 wrote

You are aware that the guy they arrested is one of the people whose office you have to go through to transfer weapons, right? He’s a clear sign that the legal processes need review.

Edit: one of the offices. You can also go to a dealer but my point is, it wouldn’t surprise me if a deputy or two is helping illegal sales go through.

8

sadson215 t1_iu3ib9r wrote

The sheriff's office doesn't handle pics or nics so you're talking out of your ass. PICS is handled by the state police.

0

OrdinaryCorrect3161 t1_iu3uvwx wrote

Bro what? Dickhead, that’s the background checks. I’m talking if you wanted to buy my gun, we’d go to the sheriff’s office to do the transfer.

1

sadson215 t1_iu48946 wrote

No I'm paying you and I don't want to go to the sheriff's office I want to go to the FFL and if you have a problem with that I can get the same shitty gun you're peddling off gun broker nib and have it shipped to an FFL near me.. douche.

0

OrdinaryCorrect3161 t1_iu48n3f wrote

It’s section c. I’m just explaining how the law is written bro. There’s a way the sheriff’s office can be involved here. Get your panties out the bunch.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/LEGIS/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=00.&chpt=061.&sctn=011.&subSctn=000.&mobile_choice=suppress

1

sadson215 t1_iu4bjcp wrote

You said you have too you can go to an FFL too

1

OrdinaryCorrect3161 t1_iu4fpze wrote

Okay, you’re right. I should have said “one of the places you have to go to”

1

tofucaketl t1_iu28qwu wrote

No, part of the gun buying process is filling out form 4473 (falsifying any information on the form is a federal felony). One of the questions (11a) asks if you're buying the firearm for yourself. By answering affirmatively to that question while intending to immediately sell/give the firearm to another person you're a felon. There's no mind reading going on. You've committed a crime before taking possession of the firearm. Obviously there are safeguards for the sellers (e.g. not being mind readers), but that does not change the fact that the buyer is a criminal.

−1

AbsentEmpire t1_iu32wq7 wrote

OK but lying when answering that question will only ever be known and prosecuted as such after the fact. There is nothing inherently stopping you from lying on that question, and hindering the sale.

I mean hell the same shit happens for alcohol, it's illegal for a 21+ year old to buy booze with intent to sell it to minors but that shit happens all the time.

I own several guns, I'm 100% in favor of implementing a system that hinders straw sales for being as prevalent as they are.

6

jackxaniels t1_iu51zwj wrote

The ATF itself admits that it prosecutes 0.1% of cases where someone submits falsified information on form 4473. Clearly basing a law on a pinky promise isn’t effective

1

tofucaketl t1_iu66g5b wrote

Yeah but the ATF is garbage. A 4473 violation is one of those things that's not something they go after specifically, but tacked on as another crime when charging someone with more serious stuff. It's like a ticketmaster fee for court.

1