Please, you want to argue a strawman case you are making up… My point stands, sheriff’s do not seek indictments, prosecutors do… Judges then issue arrest warrants… If the sheriff’s refuse to execute the arrest warrants, judges have plenty of powers within their authority to enforce the orders of the courts…
There’s no strawman in my post. Just the conclusion of your argument.
Here. I’ll start the process at your chosen point instead.
Criminal fingers me for selling him a gun.
DA indicts me.
Judge issues a warrent.
Say the sheriff does actually arrest me.
At the trial criminal say I sold him a gun.
Me: no I didn’t.
Where do you go now? There is no record of me owning any gun. You could have the criminal, and the gun both in hand, and you still couldn’t ever prove I owned the gun, let alone sold it.
1 Like
California has had the exact same requirement since 1991… Lot’s of prosecutions and curiously, no supreme court ruling it unconstitutional…
Well, actually there is a record of what gun you purchased if you bought it from an FFL.
Here’s how it would go in my state for a gun I bought after 12/1/14:
At the trial criminal says I sold him a gun.
Me: no I didn’t
Prosecutor: Well according to the records you bought it on 2/14/15; if not to the criminal, who did you sell it to, then?
If the gun had been private property for over twenty years and I decided to sell it the FFL and the state and federal government would have no clue as to where the gun came from. Now tell me where the record is of that sale?
I guess we disagree on how onerous engaging in a simple background check would be.
Answer: I don’t know. I’m not required by law to keep records of who I sold it to.
I perhaps wasn’t clear. My apologies.
I was describing a scenario where the gun in question was bought new (by me) in 2015.
As I mentioned in a previous post, privately selling guns that were purchased prior to the enactment of a UBC law can’t realistically be enforced. It starts with purchases on or after the enactment date.
Well, in my state, I’d probably have to try that defense, but I’d rather be able to say “I transferred that guy the gun at ‘GunsRUS’ and they will have a record of that.”
If you sell said gun to somebody who ends up doing something stupid with it the first thing the police will ask is “Where did you get the gun?”. And then that guy is gonna roll right over on ya. And then the police are see it was sold without the proper background check.
Good lord man, you aren’t even aware of everything that you put in your post. I was clearly referring to this portion of your post which has no stipulations on it. It simply says they will refuse to enforce the law. And please spare me any of the ridiculous parsing that we’ve all grown to expect.
How are they going to prove I was the one who sold the gun. It’s not like criminals are good honest citizens. He will say I sold the gun. I will say I have never owned that gun. Now what do they do?
Yeah, God forbid that any supposedly law abiding gun owners actually be expected to obey the law. What the ■■■■ were these dummies thinking?
Charge you anyway leaving you with the choice of either taking a plea deal, or taking your chances with a jury who might or might not convict, but still leaving you with a huge pile of legal expenses.
Nothing. And then you can have a good giggle with family and friends about how you put it to the man and sold your gun to somebody who shouldn’t have been able to buy one because “who the hell are they to try and get you to comply with the law and have a background check done on someone”. tee hee hee
If a law is unconstitutional the only ones breaking the law are the ones who try to enforce that law. So law abiding citizens will be the only ones following the constitution as written.
The dummies are thinking that there will be no back lash over these laws.
You haven’t purchased a firearm from an FFL in the last 20 years or so?
Me, I own no guns. They were all lost in a fire in the barn many years ago
How clever.
So, if the guy you sold it to had a previous conviction for domestic violence or some other offense that meant he should not be able to buy a gun and then he killed his ex-wife or ex-girfriend with it and all of your gun buddies were then saying things like “hey, imagine that… a criminal didn’t obey gun laws and got a gun!” and “See! we told you criminals don’t obey the law.” you’d be like smirking to yourself or would you let them in on your little “screw the man” secret that it was you who sold him the gun? Just curious.
So you’re for everyone being able to buy and own guns no matter what their history is? Is that right? Or do you only deem some gun laws unconstitutional?
