NYC bans mentioning the 2nd amendment

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by tlarkin, May 10, 2008.

  1. tlarkin

    tlarkin Guest

    4,449
    0
    Last edited: May 10, 2008
  2. KGunner

    KGunner G&G Evangelist

    Wow...that is actually appalling. How can liberals champion free speech and tout the 1st and 4th but want to BAN mentioning the 2nd in a case that has to do with the 2nd.
     

  3. AKHunter

    AKHunter G&G Newbie

    This is utterly stupifying.
     
  4. ghost_raven

    ghost_raven G&G Evangelist

    Talk about blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Tenth Amendment (loosely translated)- "Ye local governments shall not muck with the Constitution"
     
  5. Please don't say that "liberals" want to ban mentioning the 2nd Amendment. It's one effing lawyer, trying to stack the odds in his favor before a trial starts. That's what lawyers do for a living, and it has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism in general.

    This thread has a very misleading title.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2008
  6. mitch_mckee

    mitch_mckee Guest

    1,085
    1
  7. Look's like this feller can make some Big Dollars later if they deny his Constitutional Right's.
    That Bloomberg must be a Blooming Idiot !
     
  8. im still in the dark about the straw sale thing

    if i at 22 buy a handgun for someone else who is under 21, thats illegal

    well if i made the purchase with cash, how can the unknowing gun vendor know its a straw sale, they are kinda unwitting participants
     
  9. So, I'd take the city as well as Bloomberg to the DOJ for denying me my Constitutional Rights.

    I'd love to know how much George Soros's money is being funneled into Bloomberg's "interests" ... as well as the mainly, not all... Liberal "interests" (gun control) to get this done...? If I were a betting man, I'd say there is a straight flow to every anti-gun effort on the books as well as the future plans for the dismissal of our 2nd Amendment right.

    Obviously, they also have no problem denying the 1st Amendment right, why would they deny the 2nd Amendment rights?
     
  10. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    A "straw sale" is a federal crime, and involves someone buying a firearm for another individual who's not legally entitled (qualified) to own it. The question is specifically asked as the first question on the 4473 yes/no part. Gun dealers are supposed to report suspected "straw sales" although how they would know a straw sale was happening is dubious. The "claim" of bloomberg and others is that people are buying guns in "normal" states like PA or GA and selling them to criminals in NJ/NY. This claim is largely BS, by the way.

    If you sold a gun you already owned to someone who wasn't eligible to own it for whatever reason (and you knew this), strictly speaking, that wouldn't be a straw sale but would likely violate a host of federal and state laws.
     
  11. Well, if the person with you picks out a gun and you buy it, it's kind of obvious. My nephew Justin and I could probably make an undercover Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent nervous, if he were watching either of us buy a gun; the two of us usually show up as a pair, and I rely heavily on his expertise. And of course, I like to handle guns and look them over even if he's the one looking to buy, and he always wants my opinion. So clerks have gotten confused before as to which one of us was actually buying the gun.

    It happened on the .410 Stevens I just bought, because Justin used to have one as a kid and was delighted to get his hands on this one. I had to just about pry it away from him, and it took two or three tries to get through to the clerk that Justin might be drooling, but I was buying--for me.

    There can be some serious questions about whether a clerk should have recognized a straw sale or not, just like it isn't always easy to tell whether an adult is buying beer for himself, or for the teenager with him. To make a case stick, the undercover agents should have to make it perfectly plain who the gun was supposedly for.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2008
  12. patrick70

    patrick70 G&G Addict

    He is a Blooming idiot,and then some.

    He has taken a personal crusade to ban guns nationwide,a real low baller
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2008
  13. Windwalker

    Windwalker G&G Newbie

    But the people of New York City elected him. Of course, it only takes one more idiot voter than the rational voters have to elect him.
     
  14. Keep an eye on him, Windwalker. As soon as he starts soft-pedaling his anti-gun actions again, and talking about how much respect he has for our 2nd Amendment rights, and for our proud heritage of hunting and the Great Outdoors, we'll know he's calculating his chances to run for president next time around.
     
  15. tlarkin

    tlarkin Guest

    4,449
    0
    The reason they did this is not allow the lawyers on the defense side turn this into a 2nd amendment argument since the accused sold guns illegally. It has nothing to do with the 2nd what so ever, however the defense will skew it that way.

    What it does do, is give this guy a huge chance of appealing any charges convicted towards him. I am sure an Appeals court would eat up the banning of anything from the constitution.
     
  16. You're right, tlarkin; the case isn't about whether he has a Consitutional right to sell guns in general, but whether he broke the law by doing so outside the rules.

    Did you notice: the opposing lawyer shrugged it off as no big deal, and basically said, "fine. We don't get to wave the 2nd Amendment, they don't get to scare the jurors with horror stories about the NRA's influence and power."
     
  17. i understand.....but what is BOOBberg's legal claim, sounds like ***-talk to me

    btw, i have been to adventure outdoors and am going to be making my next fire-arm purchases from them from now on, they need my support!

    check out their website with weekly and monthly specials for all NIB items

    advout.com
     
  18. Since his agents were acting outside their jurisdiction, if they were doing straw sales they're guilty of a criminal violation themselves. Reminds me of a case in Oklahoma when I was there in the seventies, where a sheriff sent an underaged teenager across the county line to buy booze from a liquor store owned by the mother of the sheriff in the neighboring county, then had his deputies swoop across the line to arrest her. That one came very close to turning into a shooting war...
     
  19. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    It is hizzoner talking out his hind end with the whole project (as well as him and his agents committing not only a criminal act, but conspiracy to commit a criminal act--all prosecutable under federal law). Just a demagogue trying to get power and attention. Nothing new in politics; always wrong and in this case criminal as well. It's pretty much impossible to prove that a gun dealer should have reported or prevented a straw sale from occuring unless the perps specifically state "I'm buying this gun for someone who isn't allowed to have it," or something similar and the dealer sells them the gun anyway. Lots of people go with others to help them pick out and buy firearms for themselves. There's nothing criminal in this. A whole family (with no criminal record) can go look at a firearm and one of the family members buys it; nothing criminal in this either.

    What he's been trying to do is use agents to elicit straw sales as a call for gun control in other soverign states. Essentially, a back-door method of gun control. He's trying to, through surrogates, extend his jurisdiction to somewhere it's not.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2008