Comment Re:bad idea (Score 1) 1232
Some of them are willing to risk a murder rap for twenty bucks. Happens to pizza delivery men more often than you might think.
Some of them are willing to risk a murder rap for twenty bucks. Happens to pizza delivery men more often than you might think.
It's actually illegal to buy a gun outside your State of legal residence unless:
1) it is a private sale, not innvolving a licensed dealer (you want to buy a gun from your uncle, no problem, you go into a gunshop, no sale)
or...
the sale is executed through a gun dealer local to you. I had to do this once when I saw a really sweet Mauser hunting rifle while traveling. Only way to actually buy it was to arrange with the gunshop that had it to ship it to a gunshop local to where I lived, and do the actual sale there. And pay sales tax twice, essentially, plus dealer markup twice.
If you're going to give legal advice, you should get it right. Your first option is, in fact, a Federal felony--you have it exactly backwards.
It is illegal to buy a gun from a private seller outside your state of residence. If the owner is not a resident of your state, he must send it to a licensed (FFL) dealer in your state of residence, who can then transfer the firearm to you.
You can buy a long gun from an out-of-state FFL, so long as it would be legal for you to make the same purchase from an in-state FFL. You cannot buy a handgun from an out-of-state FFL.
The only common exception would be for those buyers who hold Curio and Relic collectors' licenses, who may buy C&R-eligible firearms from out-of-state sellers and receive them directly. That's because the C&R license is, in fact, a limited FFL of its own.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure....
1) Applies in the criminal, not civil, context, and
2) Is not being breached in this case anyway. This is standard discovery, and the defense is quite entitled to discover evidence that would bolster its own case or impeach the plaintiff's.
It should be the decision of the plaintiffs to provide that information as evidence, not the position of the judge to order private information.
No. A thousand times no. Defendants have rights, and they should have rights. One of those rights is necessarily the right to obtain evidence necessary to mount a capable defense. Telling the defense "you can only have the evidence the plaintiff wants to give you" puts his defense at the mercy of the plaintiff (who, you will remember, is fundamentally adverse to the defendant).
I'm not advocating in either direction, but an alternative would be to allow the evidence illegally obtained, but prosecute the person who obtained it illegally.
Do you really expect prosecutors to file those cases?
A German.
Allow me to refine the statement, then. Speaking only for myself--though I suspect many will agree, I am not appointed as their mouthpiece--I've no problem with the government enforcing contracts. The issue is that the government has taken it upon itself to say that for this type of contract, we're putting very narrow qualifications on who is permitted to enter into the deal. Having such strict limitations is relatively rare, and in nearly all other cases, has been struck down as unconstitutional. Even in the same realm (marriage), we've struck down such restrictions as anti-miscegenation rules (see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)). Outside of marriage, there are almost no restrictions on who can enter into a contract; the few that exist tend to center on capacity. Individuals are free to come as pairs, small groups, or very large groups, with structures to allow all to act as a single entity; to allow one to make binding decisions for the others; to own property in common; to share in gain or loss; etc. In fact, we even have a name for such coming-together:
Incorporation.
The Flying Tigers were active duty airmen, not volunteers. This made their flights against the Japanese an act of war by the US government against Japan, well before the actual declared hostilities.
The Flying Tigers were volunteers; they resigned their commissions in the US armed forces before taking the assignment.
Now, I'll grant you, the US government provided tacit support funneled through corporate intermediaries, including allowing the volunteers to leave the service, but as a matter of formality, they were not agents of the US government.
...and standing down against a rabbit.
You are, of course, correct; my fingers got ahead of my brain for a moment. Thank you for the correction.
Anyone can get a gun in Mexico right now...
Yup. Just wait for the delivery from ATF.
On occasion, several of these nations hold temporary bazaars in large warehouse-like buildings where you can go in and trade the local currency for all sorts of weapons - no questions asked.
To the bolded bit: not so much. If the seller is a dealer--and the majority of them are--you have to go through the same paperwork (form 4473) and background check as if you'd bought it at the store. If the seller is a private individual, yes, you can buy without the check, but then, you can do that any time, gun show or not. Also, if the gun is of certain categories (short-barreled rifle/shotgun, machine gun, destructive device, etc.) it has to go through the background check, other paperwork, and an expensive tax stamp regardless of whether it's a dealer or private seller.
The "gun show loophole" is a myth.
It's also a legal requirement for any sort of handgun. If it's not rifled, it's legally classed as a short-barreled shotgun, which is much more difficult (in some jurisdictions, outright impossible) to own legally. An SBS is any smoothbore device with a barrel length (measured from the face of the closed bolt to the muzzle) less than 18", or a total overall length less than 26."
...then agreed to by 2/3rds of the state legislatures.
3/4 of the state legislatures, but otherwise, spot on.
This is a good point, And a difficult one to discuss, at least in the US. At that time (and for a shamefully long time after it) the common belief was that black people couldn't take care of themselves. They were viewed either as livestock or like a (working) pet. Today, this thought is reprehensible...but it was a commonly held belief then.
Exactly. The modern view is that nobody can take care of himself, and needs a government nanny to look after him.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker