Other then the private firearm sale loop hole, LIST THEM. YOU SAID there are a great many, list them.....go for it. I expect dozens. Be specific.
There is no so-called "loophole" in the acquisition of a firearm. Either the acquisition is legal, or it is not. Those are the only two options that exist, there is no third choice. Is there any provision for enforcement against the acquisition and possession of illicit narcotic substances? Is there any provision for enforcement against the act of committing murder? Is there any provision for enforcement against the act of smuggling? Is there any provision for enforcement against the prohibition of manufacturing and distributing child pornography? Is there any provision for enforcement against any criminal act the public is not supposed to commit, but does so regardless of it being illegal?
What an inept list. You failed in everyone. Yes to all of them. Scripted drugs require a License to sell. A seller of scripted drugs violates the law by not reporting every sale.you commit a crime by not reporting an illicit drug sale you observe or are a part of....not if it’s a gun sale though. They must be produced proof when asked by any law enforcement. Doctors need to display Their MD license before they write scrips. . Without a displayed license on recorded, no pharmacy will Sell a drug without one. The seller is required to see the license Or have access in file for thier inspection or the pharmacy breaks the law. But not if they sell guns privately. Smuggling ? Rediculous. You need every controlled product for transport from one state to another, tagged and every transporter must display the license to the seller of the product. It’s angainst the law to sell controlled items withOut ID and transfer By the seller. But not if they sell guns privately. Child porno has been controlled for decades. Only licensed stores and internet distributors are allow to display pornography in general. They are obligated to enforce child pornography laws themselves and they cannot produce it, or they are arrested for illegal distribution by allowing it. They are obligated to report any distribution they are aware of by law. But not if they sell guns privately. in everyone of your examples, even felony murder, the private citizen is in violation of a crime, if he does not report the illegal conduct, except if they sell guns privately So, not so in private gun sales. The seller is not responsible for the legality of his own sale. still waiting.
Do be certain to explain how. Legal sales of prescription substances are not being discussed. The phrase at hand is illicit narcotic substances, meaning the likes of heroin, cocaine, opium and the like, illegally imported into the united states and sold at the street level by illicit drug dealers. And how do such legal requirements serve to prevent the illicit trade between states? Explain how such is enforced against the criminal element. And yet the production of distribution of child pornography is continuing unabated. Why is such not being prevented? Why has an end not been put to such? And yet the prohibited individual commits a felony if they attempt to purchase, possess, or even touch a firearm, completely independent of the actions taken by the one selling the firearm. Explain precisely why you are attempting to make excuses on the part of the actual criminal, in favor of attempting to punish the private individual who has not actually committed a crime.
Private firearm sales, by law, have to go through a licensed FFL in most states. ID is required. And there is no such a thing as a "gun show loophole" either. If the FFL is skipped in a private sale, that transfer is an illegal sale in just about all states.
Wrong. Every firearm by law, starts out as a LEGALLY OWNED and purchased firearm, then sold to a convicted felon. Most drugs start out illegal. Don’t conflate the two. You struggle because you are wrong. The seller in every illicit activity is as responsible and commits a criminal act as the buyer does except for private gun sales under federal law. He is not required to show proof of legality. In private, he does not....excepting 22 states. It is illegal to sell in those states to an unqualified person.....whether you know it or not. That means, the seller has to see that a BC is instituted and supply proof. Otherwise, the seller has commuted a crime. in everyone of your examples, the seller or even observer is as responsibility for legality. You’ve said nothing to indicate you know the law.
QUOTE THE FEDERAL LAW. Do it instead of making false claims. It is a state law in fewer then half the states, but not federally. As yet, you don’t know the difference and are trying to conflate the two.. Quote the federal law....
Exactly. When cornered, the “guns for everyone crowd“ start conflating federal and state laws pretending, they are making a point.
The tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a double-edged sword, ain't it? Your deep desire to make a point about there being a federal law or not pertaining to this is a moot and worthless point.
This is true - it is impossible to legally avoid the background checks mandated by federal law, and so there is loophole in that law.
Prove such. Then do not discuss the matter of prescriptions, which by their nature are legal. Explain why it is not working in the state of California. The entire premise of the above statement on the part of yourself, is presented as if the prohibited individual is somehow a victim of the actions of the private seller.
You keep struggling to change the subject to the buyer....because you pretend the seller isn’t committing a crime by federal law. The gun crowd luvs it, so they can sell their guns to anyone in all but 22 states, without being required to identify the buyer as qualified.
For the simple reason that in this particular scenario, that being a prohibited individual attempting to acquire a firearm, it is the buyer and only the buyer who is actually engaged in any sort of illegal activity. They know they cannot legally possess a firearm, yet they are declaring that they are going to do so anyway. And yet the position being demonstrated on the part of yourself, is that the prohibited individual who knows full well that their actions are illegal, should be excused from their wrongdoing because it is apparently not their fault. The seller is immaterial. The state of California requires such, but firearms are still being trafficked to the criminal element without so much as a second thought, despite every firearm being registered. Pray tell, exactly why would anyone knowingly sell a firearm registered in their name, to a known criminal? The number in the state of California confirm such is indeed happening, so why is it happening?
The burden of proof is on the part of yourself to demonstrate the avenue in which a prohibited individual can legally purchase a firearm, and not commit a felony offense in the process.
[ Well it’s about time. You finally get it. It is federally legal for any seller to privately sell Unknowingly to an unqualified buyer. For that reason, it is impossible to hold any convicted felon responsible either. The convicted felon simply goes to a state where sellers are free to sell firearms to convicted felons, legally. No one is required to enforce the law. An FFL dealer, is forced to identify illegal buyers and he would be committing a crime if he didn’t. A private seller is not, except in states where mandatory BC are mandated for all sales.
Explain why such matters. Explain why the private individual should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and review than the prohibited individual who decided they are going to commit a felony offense by illegally acquiring a firearm. What is the rationality of such a position of approach? Is it believed the prohibited individual is somehow a victim of the actions of the private individual? Then cite the case. Show where the courts have held what circumstances allow for a prohibited individual to purchase a firearm, without the purchase or subsequent possession resulting in a felony offense. There is no enforcement even where background checks are mandated for private firearm purchases, unless every firearm in existence is simultaneously registered, which they are not. No registered firearms means no private sales background check requirement can be enforced. And as has been proven, even when the firearms are registered, the requirement still cannot be enforced. The state of California is evidence of such. Disprove it or be silent on the matter. For the simple reason that the law in question was never intended to apply to private individuals involved in private transactions. It was intended exclusively to apply to federally licensed firearm dealers, and absolutely no one else. It could be argued attempting to hold private individuals to the same standard of conduct is actually a violation of the law.
I don’t answer your “explain “ questions. If this is obviously stuff you can easily look up. Non lawyers have no idea what laws were intended to do what. They are just making stuff up to CYA.
In truth it is simply not possible for yourself to provide an answer for why the private individual should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and review than the prohibited individual who decided they are going to commit a felony offense by illegally acquiring a firearm. It is simply not possible for yourself to explain the rational approach to such a course of action.
You went couple of posts without misusing reflexive pronouns, then all of a sudden. You must be upset.
The manner of speech utilized in communication is not relevant to the discussion, nor does it change the fact that the position on the part of yourself cannot be justified with a rational approach for why the private individual should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and review than the prohibited individual who decided they are going to commit a felony offense by illegally acquiring a firearm.
It certainly does if you, yourself can’t convey the meaning in an understandable way. There, I gave you an example of the correct usage of a reflexive pronoun. Yes, the Private seller of federally controlled substances or products except firearms, is held to a higher standard. Otherwise, they commit a crime.
