First i594 prosecution

[thirtycal]

Notice that only the seller was prosecuted, but presumably the law applies to both the seller and buyer.

Thirtycal

 

[Dave Workman]

follow-up:

Washington 'background check' case casts doubt on law's effectiveness


The first criminal charge under a two-year-old Washington State "universal background check" law has sparked a debate over whether the voter-approved requirement actually is working, because a crime was still committed and a life was lost.


Washington 'background check' case casts doubt on law's effectiveness

 

[DB is Here]

follow-up:

Washington 'background check' case casts doubt on law's effectiveness


The first criminal charge under a two-year-old Washington State "universal background check" law has sparked a debate over whether the voter-approved requirement actually is working, because a crime was still committed and a life was lost.


Washington 'background check' case casts doubt on law's effectiveness

W/O a State registration is completely toothless. Then again, I see where this is going. Slippery slopes is a favorite vacation spot for our "Dear Leaders".

 

[308]

Proof the criminal minded will submit to the UBC laws.

 

[etrain16]

follow-up:

Washington 'background check' case casts doubt on law's effectiveness


The first criminal charge under a two-year-old Washington State "universal background check" law has sparked a debate over whether the voter-approved requirement actually is working, because a crime was still committed and a life was lost.


Washington 'background check' case casts doubt on law's effectiveness

Double edged sword. Yes, it proves what we've been saying all along - it cannot, will not, prevent a crime. That said...

Be prepared for the politicians to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the law, and to use that as justification for stricter laws, more regulation. They are not stupid, they will find a way to spin this in their favor. And, sadly, a majority of Washingtonians will go along with them. Yep, this could easily go from bad to worse.

 

[Koda]

while the antis rammed the UBC law through to close the "loophole" that criminal get their guns, then according to this Bloomberg quiz 90% of criminal get their guns from 5% of FFL dealers...

<broken link removed>

 

[PaulB47]

are YOU willing to give up your freedom so that someone else can buy your gun without a check? Is it really worth it?

Complying with the law is giving up your freedom too.

Your position here is logical or at least arguable - a tradeoff between the certain loss of a small amount of liberty (and the added risk of back door registration) versus a slight chance of a very significant loss of liberty. The only fly in the ointment is that continuing down your preferred path leads to a total loss of liberty for everyone. At some point there has to be some pushback. At some point people have to say NO MORE. Thank heaven the people of New York and Connecticut are already there. Such action supports all of us.

Just one additional point: the small risk of being caught is certainly significantly reduced by 1) using some judgment about who you sell to, and 2) keeping your big mouth SHUT when encountering police.

 

[Caveman Jim]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson.

 

[etrain16]

Complying with the law is giving up your freedom too.

Your position here is logical or at least arguable - a tradeoff between the certain loss of a small amount of liberty (and the added risk of back door registration) versus a slight chance of a very significant loss of liberty. The only fly in the ointment is that continuing down your preferred path leads to a total loss of liberty for everyone. At some point there has to be some pushback. At some point people have to say NO MORE. Thank heaven the people of New York and Connecticut are already there. Such action supports all of us.

Just one additional point: the small risk of being caught is certainly significantly reduced by 1) using some judgment about who you sell to, and 2) keeping your big mouth SHUT when encountering police.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. The main point being that there is risk in choosing to defy any law, this story simply serves to remind us all of that fact. That said, everyone's risk tolerance is very different. The guy used poor judgment in who he sold to, and now he's going to pay for it, one way or another.

Your point about resisting is likely held by many, but many will do so without ever mentioning it - and, if it has to be done in the shadows, is it truly having an effect for the positive? Maybe so, I don't know.

 

[bolus]

Did I read that right that they have not even found the gun?

 

[PaulB47]

if it has to be done in the shadows, is it truly having an effect

Absolutely, it has an effect. Virtually all law enforcement happens in the brains of the people; likewise, virtually all resistance to tyranny happens in the same place. If it is not happening there, then it is not going to happen anywhere else either.

 

[Koda]

sorry, it does not have an effect if resistance is done in the shadows. All that does is pave the way for someone else to be made an example of.... pretty selfish to encourage others to break the law openly when you would not, so that you can finally have a case example to cite....

 

[PaulB47]

I've broken plenty of laws, just don't make a habit of giving out details.

I don't see why this should be controversial, given that the alternative is licking boots no matter what those in power decide to do to you. Again, I have to ask you, if Hillary outlaws guns with an executive order, do you intend to turn yours in?

 

[Koda]

I've broken plenty of laws, just don't make a habit of giving out details.

I don't see why this should be controversial, given that the alternative is licking boots no matter what those in power decide to do to you. Again, I have to ask you, if Hillary outlaws guns with an executive order, do you intend to turn yours in?

you dont understand how it works, society determines whats laws are good and bad and to be followed not you or I and encouraging others to break the law is selfish so you can have an example of what you call tyranny...

if Hillary bans all guns and everyone silently buries their guns in non-compliance, Hillary wins.

 

[Martini_Up]

Double edged sword. Yes, it proves what we've been saying all along - it cannot, will not, prevent a crime. That said...

Be prepared for the politicians to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the law, and to use that as justification for stricter laws, more regulation. They are not stupid, they will find a way to spin this in their favor. And, sadly, a majority of Washingtonians will go along with them. Yep, this could easily go from bad to worse.

Agreed.

I can see it now: "A good first step which will require more and stricter laws until we effectively wipe away gun violence"

 

[PaulB47]

society determines whats laws are good and bad

"Society" is not a sentient being; it cannot think, nor can it act. Only individuals can do that.

What you mean when you say something like this, is that at some point in time at least 51% of people can lord it over at most 49% of the people. Unless it is a special interest group lobbying corrupt politicians, in which case it doesn't even require a majority. I agree that groups of people can bully other groups of people, but they still are acting as individuals. It's important not to indulge in collective-speak, otherwise it makes the job of collectivists much easier.

encouraging others to break the law is selfish

Encouraging others to never break the law, no matter what, is slavish.

if Hillary bans all guns and everyone silently buries their guns in non-compliance, Hillary wins.

I didn't ask this. I asked if you would turn yours in. Either you would, or you wouldn't. You are apparently advocating that people should do so. On the other hand, if you are not advocating that, then you agree with me - that laws sometimes should be broken. So which is it?

 

[PaulB47]

BTW, it is not the end of the world if you would agree with me.

Consider this passage by Henry David Thoreau:
------
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?
Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

 

[Koda]

Paul, I just disagree with the way you advocate civil disobedience.