arma virumque cano (et alia)
"I say the owner should be arrested too. " Arrest, as in not convicted Mike. Though that is an assumption I'm making since if there had been a conviction, it would have likely been mentioned. If he was a prohibited person, the FFL can, I suspect, expect some sort of consequence since there is likely some ATF rule about hiring such people. It sounds like the owner was the one that reported him.
If he was a prohibited person, the FFL can, I suspect, expect some sort of consequence since there is likely some ATF rule about hiring such people.It sounds like the owner was the one that reported him.Actually, the news on that score is good. There doesn't seem to be any federal requirement to conduct background checks on employees, although the cud-munchers have been bleating for one for years. The Law Center to Whine About "Gun Violence" says that five states have such a requirement:3. Employee Background Checks: Five states – Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington – require background checks on firearms dealer employees. In Connecticut, however, employee background checks are only required where “the principal part of such trade or business is the retail sale of goods other than firearms.”In Delaware, employee background checks must be conducted annually. In New Jersey, employees of retail firearms dealers must first obtain a state-issued license, which is valid for 3 years.In California, firearms dealers may require employees who handle, sell or deliver firearms at the dealers’ place of business to undergo background checks, but such background checks are not mandatory.112 California law explicitly permits local governments to require background checks of firearms dealer employees.113
Thanks for the info Kurt. That is interesting, sort of like its the prohibited person's responsibility to not break the law. What a novel concept. And of course, there's no mention of a conviction of charges of felon in possession.
Besides hiring a person like this, the owner allowed guns to walk out of his establishment, for which he is ultimately responsible.
Mike, this isn't a little gun shop where the owner is there all the time. It's a pretty big place.http://mainstreetgunsandrange.com/index.php/show-room If the guy was making sales, then he would also be removing the guns from inventory by making false entries in the "Bound Book". As I said, it appears the owner reported it to the police when he discovered it. I'm sure if there is some collaboration discovered between the thief and the owner, it will be dealt with.
More Mikeb calls for jailing theft victims if they discover and report the theft. Yeah, that's a great idea...
"Mike, this isn't a little gun shop where the owner is there all the time."Tell me this, ss. If you owned a gun shop like that, don't you think you could ensure that no guns ever go missing? Could something like this happen to you?
Employees stealing things happens to every business. Anyone who claims that they could ensure that this kind of thing would Never happen is naive, lying, or both.
That's just not true, Anonymous. Do you think the high-end jewelry store allows diamonds and emeralds to walk out the door unaccounted for? No, of course not. That's the seriousness with which gun shop owners should protect their inventory - and most do. Those who do not should be held responsible.
"Do you think the high-end jewelry store allows diamonds and emeralds to walk out the door unaccounted for? No, of course not." Well, not so much Mike. "The F.B.I. claims that between November 2012 and her dismissal, 165 pieces of jewelry went poof, including “diamond bracelets, platinum, or gold diamond drop and hoop earrings, platinum diamond rings, and platinum and diamond pendants.” Lederhaas-Okun, authorities say, would check out the jewelry for professional reasons—marketing purposes, showing potential buyers, and so forth—and then not return them."“She was careful to only keep items that were valued at under $10,000,” says Scott Selby, the co-author of Flawless: Inside the Largest Diamond Heist in History. “Tiffany’s has a policy of only investigating missing inventory that’s valued over $25,000. That’s what enabled her to do this; it was slow and systematic.” "Tiffany’s discovered that the jewelry was missing when it conducted a company-wide inventory review, and e-mails between Lederhaas-Okun and the unnamed jewelry reseller were found on her computer."http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-08/how-a-tiffanys-employee-stole-1-dot-3-million-in-jewelry And this is likely how Mr. Truitt got caught also.
Good find. Then do you think the store manager was not held responsible in any way? He would be the equivalent of the owner of the gun shop whom I say was ultimately responsible.
Then do you think the store manager was not held responsible in any way?It wouldn't surprise me if her supervisor faced some consequences professionally. As for legally? I seriously doubt it. He would be the equivalent of the owner of the gun shop whom I say was ultimately responsible [for being a victim of theft].So if you want a parallel here, I guess you might have to talk the gun shop owner into firing himself. Good luck with that.
"Then do you think the store manager was not held responsible in any way?" It sounds like the company vice-president who took the jewelry followed a standard procedure of checking out the product for various reasons.
People who steal diamonds don't use them to commit crimes. People who steal guns do - or they sell them to others who do. That's why allowing guns to walk SHOULD be a crime. It should be covered in the safe storage laws.
"That's why allowing guns to walk SHOULD be a crime." It already is a crime. And they've charged the guy who did it. You just seem to want to charge the guy he stole from also. They need this thing called evidence to prove that the owner participated in it. You don't think they spent some quality time offering this guy a deal to throw his partners under the bus?
It's not legitimate to impose on someone legal responsibility to stop someone else from committing a crime.
It happens all the time in law Kurt. Wow, a little dense aren't you.
Safe storage of guns should be a legal requirement of all gun owners and gun shop owners. Of course one who steals should be charged, but the one who through negligence allows that to happen should also be charged.Why do you guys want this kind of irresponsibility to be legal?
I will never condone making it a crime to be a victim of a crime, and that's what the gun shop owner is--the victim of a crime.
"Safe storage of guns should be a legal requirement of all gun owners and gun shop owners." Current safe storage laws are mainly to prevent access by children. However, even if the laws were expanded to unauthorized persons, in this case Mr. Truitt was authorized as an employee of the company. Do you have any information suggesting negligence? Or are you just assuming because an employee managed to get some guns out the door? I know that in the past you've suggested that dealers are at fault when their stores have been broken into.
"I will never condone making it a crime to be a victim of a crime, and that's what the gun shop owner is--the victim of a crime."You're not paying attention, Kurt, or more likely, you're just playing dumb again. Why do you do that?I repeat, the theft is one crime and the negligence which made it possible is another - or should be. I didn't say it should be "a crime to be a victim of a crime," but you knew that, right? You just said that because you're so honest, I suppose.
I repeat, the theft is one crime and the negligence which made it possible is another - or should be.I've seen no evidence presented of criminal "negligence" on the owner's part.Oh, and since I never claimed you said "it should be 'a crime to be a victim of a crime,'" my honesty remains unsullied.
Your honesty? What a laugh.You have been proven a liar and criminal many times over.
"since I never claimed you said "it should be 'a crime to be a victim of a crime,'" my honesty remains unsullied."What you said was this: "I will never condone making it a crime to be a victim of a crime, and that's what the gun shop owner is--the victim of a crime."Now it's true you didn't say that I said it, but if that's not what you meant then why the fuck did you even bring it up? Don't bother to answer. You are a liar in this instance, a liar of the double-talking variety.
You are a liar in this instance, a liar of the double-talking variety.Let me make certain that I have this latest entry in the Mikeb to English Dictionary correct. A "liar of the double-talking variety" is a "liar" who has (as even the "liar's" accuser acknowledges) refrained from stating the lie in question--whether in speech, writing, braille, Morse code, sign language, semaphore, interpretive dance, smoke signals, etc.Good translation?
I say the owner should be arrested too.Any particular charge, or is this another case of someone running afoul of one of Mikeb's myriad "felony ickiness" fantasy laws?
Do you think the owner has no responsibility in this?
Well, I'd certainly like to know what state or federal law (and I suppose local laws might enter the picture if Georgia doesn't preempt firearms laws--not sure on that) you think he might have broken. In any decent justice system, after all, it's kinda bad form to arrest someone without at the very least a suspicion that he or she broke a law.At this point, I can only conclude that the store owner is a crime victim, and I take enough pride in my morality to utterly reject the notion of blaming the victim. I know better than to expect that of you, of course.
You didn't answer my question.
He did answer you: "At this point, I can only conclude that the store owner is a crime victim."
You didn't answer my question.I thought I did. Let me be more plain. Nothing in that brief news clip gives me any reason to hold the owner in any way responsible for the crime committed. I'm not ruling out the eventual emergence of evidence of wrongdoing on his part, but I've not seen any indication of it yet.Speaking of unanswered questions, mine was first. Here it is again: "Any particular charge, or is this another case of someone running afoul of one of Mikeb's myriad 'felony ickiness' fantasy laws?"You "say the owner should be arrested too," but have so far declined to say what crime he should be charged with, what law you suspect him of breaking.
How about "public endangerment?" Of course, you guys love to play the victim. That's why you're so reluctant to hold irresponsible gun owners responsible for the safe storage and custody of the guns they own. Failure to do so should be a crime in and of itself, but lacking something that specific (and sensible) we could call him guilty of public endangerment.
Hey, Mikeb--did you hear about the Army Reserve armory break-in in Massachusetts, resulting in the theft of some M4 assault rifles (real, select-fire assault rifles, not just so-called "assault weapons") and handguns? So should the Army Reserve be disbanded, and its senior officers and NCOs locked up in prison?Or is it only civilian crime victims that you like to lock up?
When did I eversuggest different treatment for military offenders?"select-fire assault rifles, not just so-called "assault weapons""Is that the proper definition then of assault rifle? One that can be switched to full-auto?
When did I eversuggest different treatment for military offenders?I'm just wondering how it would work, when it's the military that "commits the crime" of being robbed of guns. As I asked above, do we disband the Army Reserve (or at least the Massachusetts contingent), and imprison the commanders?Is that the proper definition then of assault rifle? One that can be switched to full-auto?Yep:An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles were first used during World War II and by the end of the 20th century had become the standard service rifle for most of the world's armies. Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.
Oh--if Wikipedia isn't good enough for you, perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica is more worthy of your trust:Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.Note, by the way, that Wikipedia refers to the ammunition as an "intermediate cartridge," and Britannica calls it "ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge," and keep that in mind whenever one of your fellow cud-munchers screams about how "powerful" "assault weapons" (which use the same ammo as actual assault rifles) are, and that one would need them for deer hunting only if deer wore body armor.
Well....We can all agree that the feds arrested one total dickhead white supremacist illegal arms trafficker who not only hated every living person on the planet, INCLUDING HIMSELF, but neither had any love for his own boss, the very person he was ripping off!People like that belong in prison. It's a drag for the other inmates, everyday normal prisoners, to be put in a situation with a monster like that.