Oregon penalty for not doing a background check

[284guy]

Just sentence for this Idiot. He's serving time for his actions. He knew the risk and did it anyway. Stop defending this guy. Following the law isn't that hard. If you don't like the law, advocate for change. His actions contributed to this girls death.

 

[gmerkt]

This is the price to be paid for civil disobedience, a term we hear on this forum from time to time. Personal choice but this is the very reason I'd never let one go off paper now. However unlikely the consequences may seem, the chance is always there. Look at the practical side, he's lost his rights over the price of one transaction. Not a good trade.

We've also talked about the following before. "What's the point of this law; it doesn't do anything to fight crime." Well, that may be true but it is now a law on the books that can be used in back-door prosecutions like this. I've heard guys talking about this stuff at the gun shows, something like, "Only one guy has every been caught doing that" and so forth. You don't want to be that one guy.

 

[DuneHopper]

Actually didn't they catch someone before then........................

Oh Snap, Pastor who bought the AR15 could face charges for violating SB941
LO Reverend Turns AR15 Into Garden Tools

Then again, I'm sure those 2 you discussed were of the wrong political persuasion...........................
Ray

From what I understand, it occurred in early 2016 was when the alleged event took place. But it never made the papers or news which is odd. But I think they were sentenced summer 2016. It was a couple months ago when i was talking with them about it, not being fuzzy on purpose. I was more paying attention to the fact they got nailed on SB941 by doing a private sale after it was then law.

 

[oneharmonic]

Sure, non-violent felons. Don't see the point otherwise. It's not making anyone safer.

Drug trafficking is a non-violent crime. So is trafficking firearms. So is felony theft. You're good with those people buying as many firearms as they want?

BTW, you do realize in many states felons can petition to have their firearms rights restored, after serving their time and presumably having successfully re-entered society.

Sounds like the judge followed the rules here and this convicted felon can petition to have his rights restored if he wants to. What's wrong with that?

 

[oneharmonic]

Considering his 2nd amendment rights shall not be infringed that would mean all gun laws are unconstitutional and the people trying to enforce unconstitutional laws are in fact the ones committing crimes.

If you believe all gun laws are unconstitutional, do you violate all of them on principal? Have you made a citizen's arrest of an FFL dealer lately for enforcing gun laws? Or are these just ramblings from the land of make believe?

 

[Geardo]

It was a felony conviction. Are you advocating that felons should be allowed to buy firearms?

Yes

 

[uberguy]

Drug trafficking is a non-violent crime. So is trafficking firearms. So is felony theft. You're good with those people buying as many firearms as they want?
Sounds like the judge followed the rules here and this convicted felon can petition to have his rights restored if he wants to. What's wrong with that?

Well, for one thing - ex-felon prohibition on purchasing firearms is SUPPOSED to prevent future VIOLENT crime, a key point which seems to escape you. I believe most drug trafficking does in fact involve violence. Regardless, I didn't say trafficking or theft should go unpunished, I said it makes little to no sense to permanently remove civil rights and liberties like the 2nd Amendment when it has no bearing on non-violent crimes. There is no quantifiable relationship to the lifelong punishment in these examples.

Your position is like fictional pre-crime, where you imagine a non-violent felon will become criminally violent by having access to a firearm, which is about what most anti-gun liberals believe.

Not me. I'm fine with it if this means we can't be friends.

 

[284guy]

Yes

That's just silly. Where's the deterrent to crime if you take away all the penalties?

 

[uberguy]

Just sentence for this Idiot ... His actions contributed to this girls death.

Not buying your argument. If not a gun, then a knife, machete or baseball bat.

There is no information that suggests if not for the gun, the woman would be alive. Yeah, the FFL broke the law and will do his time. Doesn't mean he caused or contributed to her death, or he would have been charged and convicted as an accessory after-the-fact to a homicide.

Sorry for the woman and no sympathy for the perp, but guns don't cause crime or violence. Period.

 

[uberguy]

That's just silly. Where's the deterrent to crime if you take away all the penalties?

Explain for everyone how laws or penalties deter someone willing to commit homicide, then suicide.

 

[oneharmonic]

Yes

Well that's one opinion. And definitely not the opinion of State or Federal law, so I'm going to continue not committing felonies.

 

[DB is Here]

I'm going to continue not committing felonies.

A smart and well studied conclusion.

 

[uberguy]

Well that's one opinion. And definitely not the opinion of State or Federal law, so I'm going to continue not committing felonies.

Good luck with that. It pre-supposes that you haven't read
The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law

"In this provocative book, Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton show how the law, which once shielded us from the government, has now become a powerful weapon in the hands of overzealous prosecutors and bureaucrats. Lost is the foundation upon which our freedom rest—the intricate framework of Constitutional limits that protect our property, our liberty, and our lives. Roberts and Stratton convincingly argue that this abuse of government power doesn't have ideological boundaries. Indeed, conservatives and liberals alike use prosecutors, regulators, and courts to chase after their own favorite "devils," to seek punishment over justice and expediency over freedom. The authors present harrowing accounts of people both rich and poor, of CEOs and blue-collar workers who have fallen victim to the tyranny of good intentions, who have lost possessions, careers, loved ones, and sometimes even their lives."

This foundational supposition is that given the many 10s or 100s of thousands of laws on the books, local-state-federal, that we're all 325 million of us potentially guilty of prosecutable felonies if the authorities should wish to target you, me or anyone - at any time.

 

[oneharmonic]

I believe most drug trafficking does in fact involve violence.

What you believe and what is the truth happened to be different things in this case.

What if this FFL dealer sold firearms to cartel members without a background check, and those cartel members used them to murder someone? Same exact non-violent felony he got convicted for here. Should he be allowed to purchase as many firearms as he wants once he gets out of jail?

Strangely, I don't feel like I'm on the wrong side here by saying, without hesitation, that convicted felons should not be able to purchase as many firearms as they want.

 

[uberguy]

What you believe and what is the truth happened to be different things in this case.

What if this FFL dealer sold firearms to cartel members without a background check, and those cartel members used them to murder someone? Same exact non-violent felony he got convicted for here. Should he be allowed to purchase as many firearms as he wants once he gets out of jail?

Strangely, I don't feel like I'm on the wrong side here by saying, without hesitation, that convicted felons should not be able to purchase as many firearms as they want.

That FFL dealer should be lawfully punished, as I indicated much earlier.

However there is zero logical foundation that once they served time and are released, now a ex-felon that prohibiting access to firearms makes anyone safer. You've offered zip, nada, nothing to counter-point this extra punishment, after-the-fact of having served time for the crime committed. Lacking any logical foundation, you should probably just admit you have some unwarranted emotional bias and be done with it.

 

[oneharmonic]

Good luck with that. It pre-supposes that you haven't read

I've had great luck not committing felonies and buying as many firearms as I want. I find the best way to not commit felonies is the know the law and follow it, which is the opposite of what this FFL dealer did.

 

[oneharmonic]

That FFL dealer should be lawfully punished, as I indicated much earlier.

However there is zero logical foundation that once they served time and are released, now a ex-felon that prohibiting access to firearms makes anyone safer. You've offered zip, nada, nothing to counter-point this extra punishment, after-the-fact of having served time for the crime committed.

If the FFL dealer didn't have access to firearms before he committed this crime, he couldn't have committed it. It stands to reason that if you remove his ability to purchase a firearm, you remove his ability to sell a gun illegally again.

 

[uberguy]

Amazing, isn't it? A few short years ago, what the FFL did (if they were a private party) was perfectly legal. And it perfectly legal in most of the US, for private parties.
Seems to me you're following along the anti's playbook to the letter.

 

[284guy]

Not buying your argument. If not a gun, then a knife, machete or baseball bat.

There is no information that suggests if not for the gun, the woman would be alive. Yeah, the FFL broke the law and will do his time. Doesn't mean he caused or contributed to her death, or he would have been charged and convicted as an accessory after-the-fact to a homicide.

Sorry for the woman and no sympathy for the perp, but guns don't cause crime or violence. Period.

Except the killer didn't use a knife, machete, or bat. He illegally gave the weapon used to kill the woman to the killer.
Strike 1

 

[DB is Here]

If we want discuss the merits of wether an ex-Felon or Felon should be able to regain his Rights have at it, that said let stay away from the "You" statements please. Zero reason to make it personal, thank you.