Nebraska dealer: No license needed to sell ‘personal collection’ of 678 guns, 13 gren

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Apr 11, 2013.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    Just warms my heart to read such uplifting stories about responsible gun ownership and those who sell them.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/...-personal-collection-of-678-guns-13-grenades/

    http://journalstar.com/news/local/c...cle_dca44bc9-80e1-520e-89b6-38b32245222a.html
     
  2. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
  3. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #3
    The Lincoln Journal Star is the source. Full newspaper for Lincoln, NE.

    BL.
     
  4. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #4
    Yeah this has nothing to do with gun owners. The guy was clearly involved in illegal arms trafficking.

    that's like saying that a cartel beheading somebody over a bad drug deal is representative of "drug users".
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    Hopefully this guy goes to jail for a very long time and if he ever gets out hopefully he is banned from owning guns for life and we can actually have a system passed that will prevent him from getting them.
     
  6. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    I can buy that.. however, with the guy also saying in multiple affidavits that this was his personal collection', does bring in the issue of ownership. You really can not deny that. However, before jumping to the conclusion that this does not have anything to do with ownership, as the indictment has now been unsealed, we should save the quick judgment of ownership and trafficking until after the guy is sentenced; something you should have no problem with, as trafficking this is illegal.

    BL.
     
  7. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #7
    Well I think he's just saying it's a personal collection to try and form a legal defense. 99.9999999% of Americans don't own 600+ firearms. I don't have a problem with somebody owning that many (can't shoot em all at once), but we also (just based on what's going on) see that he was engaging in trafficking, selling to felons, etc..., or at least those are the charges.

    I just have a problem with saying "oh look at this responsible gun owner", when it's pretty obvious he is certainly not representative of anything other than people who illegally sell weapons.

    Trying to draw a link between him, and somebody who owns a few guns or something is dishonest at best.
     
  8. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    Personal collection or not - it is a federal crime to sell a firearm to anyone you know or should have reasonably known to be ineligible for a firearm, e.g. felons.

    If true, he broke the law. Period.
     
  9. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9

    And that's a good reason to have background checks for all gun purchases. This "you know or should have reasonably known" is bull **** and full of holes, just like the NRA would like it to stay.
     
  10. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #10
    You can't honestly take the NRA seriously.
     
  11. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #11
    To be fair you can't really take the Brady Campaign seriously either. So they cancel out.
     
  12. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #12
    I don't follow that.

    I'm hearing one absurd thing about the NRA after another, though.
     
  13. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #13
    The Manchin-Toomey proposal still has private sales exempt from background checks.

    As much as I support gun ownership (my dad got me my first gun, a .22 single-shot bolt-action rifle, at 8, and I've owned various handguns over the years), this is just silly.

    In my opinion, there's no reason not to require private sales to go through an FFL, where a background check would be required.
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    Fair enough. We agree on this here, albeit slightly. Quantity (at least at this extreme) is a problem. See below.

    But here is the problem. This wouldn't have been caught had he bought all of this at a gun show, as there would have been no background checks for him nor the seller at the show, which would allow the purchase to go through.

    The crux of the matter here, at least in my opinion, isn't that he was selling the weapons; the trafficking is illegal, and we all agree with that. It is how he came to be in possession of all of these weapons, selling them without a license, when it was blatantly clear (as mentioned by the informant) that he had intent to sell them all, to anyone who wanted them.

    This is where our current system fails; responsible gun ownership or not, this is something background checks could have prevented.

    BL.
     
  15. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #15
    Well, on one hand you have the dimwitted pro-gun association. On the other hand you have the dimwitted anti-gun association. Both are pretty vocal, in their own ways.
     
  16. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16

    I agree but if we end up with their plan, it will be a huge step.
     
  17. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #17
    You are supposed to do background checks at a gun show. It's perfectly ok for him to buy that many weapons, gun show or not. What's not ok, is him selling them like he was.

    Well coming into possession wasn't the problem, it was selling them. It's very possible he passed checks and obtained the weapons. At some point, somebody had to in order to buy the weapon new.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with doing paperwork saying that you are selling a weapon to somebody else, so long as there aren't fees involved or unnecessary taxes.

    If the intention really is just to keep accountability of who has bought guns from where, etc... then this proposal (just doing paperwork and sending it to whoever) should be adequate.

    and by no fees, I mean no gubmint fees. Paying a local dealer that is licensed to do checks or something whatever they charge should be adequate.
     
  18. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #18
    That's the problem. Transactions involving private sellers at gun shows are exempt from having background checks done on the buyer. That is the change that the NRA is vehemently against with the bill being passed around the Senate.

    It is the same loophole that Gebrig thought he could use for his transactions, though he failed because he needed a license to sell (which he didn't have), and he sold to a felon (a felony).

    Even a convicted felon, whose crime was murder/homicide/assault with a deadly, who is legally barred from having guns?

    Again, there is no accountability that the dealer would submit the paperwork or be bound by law to do so. The check, if not done by the government, could be violation of the 4th. Besides, any incriminating history on a buyer would only be in the hands of the government, not someone private. So it is either the government needing to do it, or not at all. And if we are wanting to prevent felons, the unstable, or worse from producing another Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Va. Tech, Giffords, or worse (involves my or another parents' children), then those checks need to and must be performed.

    BL.
     
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    Correction. It has something to do with at least one gun owner.

    One is not nothing.
     
  20. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    Really? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that the Brady campaign is a lobbying organization for a manufacturer of any product? If not, then why do you think they are "dimwitted?"

    The NRA has clearly been funded by gun manufacturers. There is no question about that. The Brady campaign has been funded by individuals who want better gun laws. How dare you suggest the two are both dimwitted.

    What proof do you have other than your own bias? I'm serious? He worked for Reagan, and now you think because he got shot, his efforts to minimize gun violence are "dimwitted."

    I'm sorry, but that's just... sad.
     
  21. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #21
    Right but what I'm saying is it's not really a loophole per say with the gun show. They're required to do background checks. It's just that people meet there or whatever and end up selling firearms "privately". I don't agree with doing that, mind you.


    No. I should have been more clear when I said "paperwork" as I intended to include an appropriate background check.


    Are you familiar with gun purchasing? Because the dealer is accountable. They have to call in (at least in my state) and file the paperwork. The government does the actual check, nothing changes here. All I'm suggesting is that private sales go to a dealer, which is bound by federal law to submit paperwork for arms that are sold, and for a fee, do the same thing for individuals attempting to make the transaction privately.

    It solves multiple problems. The background check is done, by the dealer, who is reputable, otherwise the government would shut them down, and the transaction is recorded on paper. The dealer then gets a fee for doing it.
     
  22. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #22
    I totally don't understand why all gun transactions aren't permanently recorded. My brother owns upwards of 30 guns, half of them from family members who no longer wanted them and gave them to him. I think even gifts should be registered because any loophole, no matter how innocent has the potential for tragedy.

    Oh come on eric/, stop pretending to be a simpleton. Even you can't believe that the BC has the power and influence of the NRA?!
     
  23. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #23
    Well sure, I'm not arguing that to be the case. I'm saying the anti-gun lobby has a pretty powerful organization which spews its own rhetoric. I think you're overestimating the strength of the NRA too.
     

Share This Page