Here's the Brady take on the legislation. It would...
1. Cripple the ATF’s ability to shut down crooked gun dealers. Before the ATF could revoke a crooked dealer’s license and put him out of business, ATF would have to show that the dealer not only violated the law, but had the specific intent to break the specific law. This is an almost impossible standard of proof for law enforcement to meet.
2. Prohibit ATF from revoking licenses of gun dealers who commit many dangerous crimes, for instance, allowing hundreds of guns to “disappear” from their inventory with no record of sale.
3. Cap fines at extremely low levels for violations found during an inspection of a gun dealer. For example, a dealer with 900 federal gun law violations could face a maximum fine of less than $8.50 per violation.
4. Allow most dealers who violate gun laws to continue selling guns for 60 days after their licenses are revoked, even if they had committed willful violations of federal law.
Who in their right mind would want these four things? You would have to be gun-biased to the point of mental illness to think these four results would be good for the country.
Why do law-abiding gun owners so often support obviously bad policies?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Sounds as if Helmke needs to adjust his Rapex--the discomfort clearly has him very fussy.
ReplyDeleteAs for H.R. 2296/S. 941, as nice as they would be, they don't go nearly far enough--the BATFE should be disbanded (and preferably, their former employees will be unable to find real work, and their kids will be forced to take up prostitution just to eat).
Ah, well--maybe some fine day.
1. Cripple the ATF’s ability to shut down crooked gun dealers. Before the ATF could revoke a crooked dealer’s license and put him out of business, ATF would have to show that the dealer not only violated the law, but had the specific intent to break the specific law.
ReplyDeleteYou mean they would have to meet the burden of proof? Oh my God, that would mean they would like have to investigate and stuff.
Sorry Ruffy, burden of proof means something else entirely.
ReplyDeleteI can't think of any laws that require knowledge of specific intent to prosecute.
Let's say someone steals your TV. Typically, the fact that this person was seen carting away your TV and that the TV was found in his possession would be enough to easily convict him of theft. But using this new standard--you're saying this isn't good enough. We must now prove this person specifically intended to to steal your TV. IOW, an impossible task.
Similarly, it is every gunloon's fantasy that they come across a stranger in their home so they can shoot him. But using this new standard, you wouldn't be justified to shoot the intruder unless you could prove his intent to do you harm.
JadeGold, You are incorrect: the federal gun laws require intent for prosecution:
ReplyDeleteFrom 18 USC 924
"knowingly makes any false statement or representation..."
"knowingly violates subsection..."
"knowingly imports or brings into..."
And that was the first five sentences! Pretty much every aspect requires "knowledge".
Hardly a new standard and a major reason that saying "enforce existing gun laws" is ridiculous. They were written to be unenforcable.
This means that ATF has to prove knowledge which is a pretty high hurdle. Hence ATF investigations can last for MONTHS to shut down major sources of crime guns.
Add in that the Feds like air tight cases. Currently federal prosecutors tout above a 95% conviction rate. Also add in that most federal cases end up in "non-trial" situations.
Sorry Ruffy, but ATF spends shitloads of money on investigation for the two reasons mentioned above.
Of course, we can see that the "pro-gun" crowd wants to see gunlaws unenforcable at least from Zorro's comment.
Laci
I forgot to add that having these crappy laws is a boon for the criminal defence lawyer since non-firearms federal cases cost roughly $10k to defend.
ReplyDeleteFederal Firearms cases can run $20k PLUS.
Laci
Of course, we can see that the "pro-gun" crowd wants to see gunlaws [sic] unenforcable [sic] at least from Zorro's comment.
ReplyDeleteWrong--or at least I don't see that as anything but a temporary--and woefully insufficient--stopgap. I want all gun laws non-existent. I want all responsible for inflicting these laws on the American people to die in humiliation, disgrace, and misery, and for the important ones to be reviled for centuries in the history books.
And by the way, there's just one of me--I'm not a "crowd." Don't hold the "pro-gun crowd" to any sentiments I've expressed. I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.
Laci is, of course, correct.
ReplyDeleteAs I've sagely noted many times, that's why fewer than 5% of those who lie on their 4473 are ever prosecuted. And only about 5% of that number are ever convicted.
Essentially, someone has to confess their guilt because proving knowledge or specific intent is almost impossible to do.
Again--when a gunllon talks about "enforcing the law"--they're certainly not talking about gun crimes.
"and preferably, their former employees will be unable to find real work..."
ReplyDeleteYou say that as if the type of person who works for the ATF would look for real work to begin with.
A person works for the ATF because they don't want real work. They want a job where they can get paid to play Call of Duty 6 out of 8 hours per workday.
Point taken, Aztec, and agreed. I stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteThis means that ATF has to prove knowledge which is a pretty high hurdle. Hence ATF investigations can last for MONTHS to shut down major sources of crime guns.
ReplyDeleteI don't care. I would rather 100 dealers who are knowingly providing guns to straw purchasers go free than have 1 dealer who to the best of his knowledge was following the law get convicted.
Ruffy:I don't care. I would rather 100 dealers who are knowingly providing guns to straw purchasers go free.
ReplyDeleteFixed it for you.
Cool, the Brady post mentioned the DC snipers.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks
Not sure how many of you are on the East Coast (Zorro lives in MOFN, IL), but they did a wonderful job of paralysing at least two states and DC for three weeks.
Yeah, between that and the anthrax scare...
Fixed it for you.
ReplyDeleteNo Jada, you changed the entire meaning of my post. I guess that is what pathological liars such as yourself do though.
. . . (Zorro lives in MOFN, IL)
ReplyDeleteHmm . . . I do a fair amount of traveling (been on the road for the last couple weeks), but never heard of a place called MOFN.
Is it nice--a place I should check out?
Currently the ATF has no ability to fine. This law would give them that tool yet you gripe that it has a cap on paperwork violations? I thought you wanted the ATF to have the ability to fine?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would rather see cops fight real crime than prosecute folks for simple paperwork violations.
You realize that they count using "Y" and "N" in a small square box on the form rather than writing out "Yes" and "No" as a violation don't you? They also count a form that has a dozen questions answered that way as a dozen violations don't you? If 10 of your customers put a "Y" in a square box instead of "Yes" then they count that as over 100 violations. I think $8500 is excessive myself.
I love this thread.
ReplyDeleteFunniest comment goes to Zorro.
"I want all gun laws non-existent. I want all responsible for inflicting these laws on the American people to die in humiliation, disgrace, and misery, and for the important ones to be reviled for centuries in the history books."
Most revealing comment goes to RuffRidr.
"I don't care. I would rather 100 dealers who are knowingly providing guns to straw purchasers go free than have 1 dealer who to the best of his knowledge was following the law get convicted."
Thanks guys. I've always said this blog is about entertainment.
"I've always said this blog is about entertainment."
ReplyDeleteWith contributors like Sage Jade and the idea in general that gun control is good, it would have to be about entertainment.
Most revealing comment goes to RuffRidr.
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it revealing that you apparently don't have a problem with innocent people going to jail. That says a lot about you.
Look I don't want to see straw purchases to criminals any more than you do. But I also believe that laws need to be written carefully and investigations need to be performed thoroughly. Why would you have a problem with that?
RuffRidr:
ReplyDeleteBut I also believe that laws need to be written carefully and investigations need to be performed thoroughly. Why would you have a problem with that?
Because it's not a knee-jerk, "melt all the guns, and imprison anyone who sells them" approach--nothing short of that will satisfy the extremists like Mikeb.
Mikeb:
Funniest comment goes to Zorro.
Glad you enjoyed it--but I mean every word of it.
But I also believe that laws need to be written carefully and investigations need to be performed thoroughly. Why would you have a problem with that?
ReplyDeleteThis is typical. MikeB performs a drive by insult. I respond with a question to clarify the discussion, and MikeB is never heard from again. Why do you always end each of your posts with "What do you think?" when you never really want to discuss the issues?
Ruff - MikeB's fall back is just like Jade's. Personal insults.
ReplyDeleteIt's all he has.
Sorry RuffRidr, I was distracted on the other threads for a couple days. Was this your question:
ReplyDelete"I also believe that laws need to be written carefully and investigations need to be performed thoroughly. Why would you have a problem with that?"
Did you think I was dodging that question? Please.
My answer is I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with guys like you protecting sleaze bag FFL guys who are doing harm in the world.
Do you want the worst of the worst who are closed down by the ATF to be able to transfer all their inventory to their personal ownership and be able to do whatever they want with it?
You don't want the innocent "punished," by invasive and excessive laws, but why do you worry so much about the crooked ones.
Do you want the worst of the worst who are closed down by the ATF to be able to transfer all their inventory to their personal ownership and be able to do whatever they want with it?
ReplyDeleteAh, but the ATF aren't so focused. Instead they are more apt to harass the Ryan Horsley's of the world. So, no I don't agree with the ATF being able to seize the entire inventory of a dealer under investigation.
Hey--check this out. If you sign up to receive the Brady Bunch's "alerts," you can count on your mailbox frequently being polluted with mail from them begging for money, with a postage-paid return envelope included.
ReplyDeleteLet's have fun! Put a note in the envelope, with a well thought-out description of what you think of that organization and its agenda, and then tape the envelope to a box with some dead weight in it (nothing that could constitute a biohazard, or would otherwise be illegal to mail).
I was much less ambitious than the folks in the link. I kept the total weight just under 16 oz. (no brick, obviously), so I could just leave the box in the drop box outside the Post Office, rather than going to the counter. Bulk mailing rates are something like 20 or 22 cents per oz., so costing them a few dollars per donation request could really hurt them, if a even just a few thousand of us do it. Don't put anything on the envelope or box that identifies you--you don't want the Brady Bunch to stop sending you donation requests--we wanna keep this going.
The Brady Bunch is already so strapped for cash that enough of us might even bankrupt the dirtbags entirely.
Ah--such a happy thought!