Can a felon legally purchase and subsequently possess a firearm, without committing at least one felony in the process?
I used to be head of ATF compliance and the purchasing manager at a large retail gun store and shooting range in Ohio. We would never agree to doing such a thing. We would be willing to sell the firearm on “consignment” and charge 20% of the sale. No FFL I know of would do it without being able to make any money, as it takes time to log it into the books, do the paperwork and then retain the 4473.
Right, like Chicago and LA, Baltimore, St. Louis, Philadelphia......... No, we don't know that for sure. We know what they "report". And we know for example that the UK suppresses crime information. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...atchdog-strips-police-data-seal-approval.html https://www.parliament.uk/business/...elect-committee/news/crime-stats-substantive/ In fact, I find it difficult to trust any Leftist media or statistics. Given the state of suppression of information, I have little faith in statistics provided by governments that obviously deem the State superior to the subjects. The intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to reduce crime. It serves a purpose that was obvious when it was drafted and applies even more today as we see powerful government agencies blatantly disregarding individual rights.
Of course. A felon until convicted would not necessarily have a records check reveal he was a “convicted felon.” I hope you don’t claim to know the law. Wrong on both accounts. First, just being a felon does not disqualify anyone from legally buying or possessing a firearm privately. Only being a “convicted felon” is it illegal ( assuming the records check did not reveal other disqualifying background activities) and only doing a background, which is NOT REQUIRED federally is that discernible. Only if the felon announces to the seller, that he has committed a felony or is a convicted felon, is it illegal for the seller to commence with the sale.
A geography lesson is in order. Fact one. States are not cities. Cities gun buying laws are easy to circumvent. To get guns into a city, one can put a gun shop across the town line, a few hundred yards away. Secondly, it’s not a federal crime to move or sell guns across city lines. Too much too soon ?
You’re right. It’s intent was to have an organized armed militia to defend the country. Like the guard and reserve units, able body people can enlist.
False. Not merely factually incorrect, but outright false. One is either a felon through conviction for their crimes, or they are not a felon. There is no such thing as a non-convicted felon. Once again. Can a convicted felon legally purchase and subsequently possess a firearm, without committing at least one felony in the process?
So why is the crime within these aforementioned cities not present throughout all the other cities within the state?
[ Illinois is still one of the lower states in gun crime with its mandatory BC laws. If you don’t know the difference between cities and states, and it seems like you don’t, move on.
Ha ha you fell for that one. According to you, of course it’s legal if you don’t get caught. There are no provisions to enforce the that law.
Meaning the same background check requirements that apply throughout the state of Illinois, also apply within the city of Chicago. So, once again, why is there so much firearm-related violence in the city of Chicago, but not the rest of the state of Illinois? Why is the city of Chicago essentially the murder capital for the state of Illinois? The difference between cities and states is indeed known. But that difference makes no difference to the discussion.
Then if it is truly believed on the part of yourself, that a felon can legally purchase and possess a firearm, there is no further point of discussion on the part of yourself, as the law of the united states is not understood on the part of yourself. But not being a citizen of the united states, such a lack of understanding on the part of yourself is hardly what would be considered surprising. There is absolutely no venue available that would allow a disqualified individual to purchase, possess, or even touch a firearm, without committing at least one felony offense in the process. It does not matter if the venue is a federally licensed dealer, a private transaction between neighbors, a straw purchase, or even finding it in some gutter, the mere act of touching a firearm is a felony offense in itself and can be prosecuted.
You just said that a felon is not a felon until he’s been convicted. Then he has not committed a felony, which makes him a felon for having an illegal fire arm ! It’s your argument.
Don’t be absurd. Private run gun show booths and magazines like Uncle Henry’s are venues that allow it all the time. You can buy a gun through these venues and never have to prove it a federally legal sale . Don’t act like you don’t know. The federal firearms laws DOES NOT REQUIRE any paperwork turned into any enforcement authority and no BC what so ever in private sales. With no enforcement and guilty adjudication, according to you, no felony has been committed. THAT IS YOU SPEAKING ! Why do you think 22 states actually now require BCs on their own ? For their own good looks. Dah ! It’s called an enforcement provision to prove a felony is being committed by submission of the paperwork if the sales goes through. Another big dah. When one doesn’t know the difference between cities and states, now don’t know the difference between federal laws and state laws it makes the comments absurd.
Blame the law of the united states for being written as is. One is either a convicted felon/prohibited individual who cannot legally possess a firearm, or they are not a prohibited individual and can legally possess a firearm. Those are the only two options available, there is no third option that does not require due process of law. If one is not a felon, or an otherwise prohibited individual who has been subject to due process of law, it is legal for them to possess a firearm. The matter is truly that simple.
Acquisition of a firearm by a prohibited individual, even through such venues, is still a felony offense committed by the prohibited individual. No amount of arguing to the contrary will change that this is confirmed fact. The mistaken belief that such will make a difference, when reality proves it does not. The state of California is a shining example of such. Without corresponding registration of every single firearm in existence, there is no actual method of enforcement. If a firearm is not registered to any particular individual, there is no way for law enforcement to know who purchased what, when it was purchased, or where it was purchased. Even in states that do have registration, such as the state of California, the requirement still cannot be enforced. The ATF has proven such to be the case. Do state-level laws apply to all cities found within the state? Or do they pick and choose which cities they have jurisdiction over and which they do not?
A felon is prohibited in all 50 states from buying or possessing firearms. Whether privately or through an FFL. a felon is prohibited in all 50 states from buying or possessing firearms. Whether privately or through an FFL. it is illegal regardless if the seller knows it or not. 2 separate penalties exist for the seller. One if they knowingly sell to the felon (criminal charge) and one if they did not know the buyer was a felon (civil charge)
Being a felony level offense, according to you, only happens after adjudication. You also need to prove intent or negligence along with proving the completion of an act to prove anyone guilty of any felony crime. . With no federal requirement to prove intent or being negligent , it’s NOT a federal felony for a seller sell to a firearm to a convicted felon. In states that require BC checks, it is now negligent on the part of the seller to not require a BC and submit the appropriate forms. Not requiring a background check by any private seller in these states is now a violation in these states. That could mean lead to a state felony conviction and the loss of second amendment rights of the seller Federally. That’s why it works in states and countries. That you didn't know the difference between state and local city and municipality laws and regulations as you never denote these differences , let alone misdemeanors and felonies, pretty much negates your attempts at making any valid point. moving on.
You really aren’t differentiating between state and local laws. Neither do you seem to know the difference.
If an actual legitimate point is truly had and present on the part of yourself, then make it known and cease playing games. Get to the point or leave the discussion.
Can the prohibited individual purchase and take possession of a firearm without committing at least one felony offense in the process? Meaningless and ultimately irrelevant nonsense on the part of yourself. Meaning it is recognized on the part of yourself that there is no way of actually defending the nonsense that has been presented on the part of yourself.
I don't know if you are trolling, or if English is your second language. But what part about, it is illegal in all 50 states for a felon to purchase or possess a firearm do you not understand?
