SC man facing gun charges in New York
- Thread starter kg4kpg
- Start date
Midnight Raver
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,435
- Reaction score
- 2
- City & State/Province
- Dodge City, Moscowchusetts
Stupid man. :roll:
PANZER22
Well-Known Fanatic
Dumb, stupid, whatever.....This dude deserves what ever he gets.
biganimal
Well-Known Fanatic
Yup
He is a dumba$$
He is a dumba$$
armaborealis
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 0
People really need to be more careful when they travel outside the US.
Avtomat-Acolyte
Well-Known Fanatic
PANZER22 said:
Just like blacks sitting at lunch counters in the 1960's deserved what they got, right?
Hey, the law is the law! Who cares if it violates Civil Rights?
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
biganimal
Well-Known Fanatic
Avtomat-Acolyte said:
NO
The man is wrong because he was negligent in where he placed the gun then he forgot it!!
Someone could have been hurt or worse that gun could have fallen into the wrong hands and been used in a crime thus giving the anti's more ammo!
Midnight Raver
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,435
- Reaction score
- 2
- City & State/Province
- Dodge City, Moscowchusetts
No civil rights were compromised, he was negligent. Let alone the fact that he had no permit to bring it into Noo Yok, he would have been smarter to have just left it home.
Avtomat-Acolyte
Well-Known Fanatic
Midnight Raver said:
What.
A pistol permit is a de facto, and unConstitutional,"poll tax" whereas a citizen must pay a fee and ask permission before exercising a Civil Right.
Owning weapons, without obstruction or obtrusion, is a Civil Right.
LiveFreeorDie
Well-Known Fanatic
I have no desire to kick a hornet's nest, but....
The news article states the man is 25 years old and the name is probably Laotian (there is a large Laotian population in that area) and the Laotian gangs there can be quite violent. I'd be curious to know if the pistol was stolen and/or if he is lawfully allowed to have it in the first place (prior violent conviction?)? Definitely a dumba$$ of the highest order regardless.
Loved this one! Yep, those foreign countries can be brutal. :shock:
The news article states the man is 25 years old and the name is probably Laotian (there is a large Laotian population in that area) and the Laotian gangs there can be quite violent. I'd be curious to know if the pistol was stolen and/or if he is lawfully allowed to have it in the first place (prior violent conviction?)? Definitely a dumba$$ of the highest order regardless.
armaborealis said:
Loved this one! Yep, those foreign countries can be brutal. :shock:
Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
it was a whill back but wasnt there a cop that left his gun in a bathroom stall?
he didnt get in that much trouble did he?
he didnt get in that much trouble did he?
11B3XCIB
Well-Known Fanatic
Even if it was legal for him to have the pistol, he deserves more than just a "Boys will be boys". That kind of negligence is what comes back around to honest gun owners: when guns like that find their way into lawless hands. I agree the laws in NY are unconstituitional, but until te law is changed, there is no excuse for breaking it. I know the whole Jeffersonian quote about unjust laws, but its easier to figt for change ouside of a jail cell.
Midnight Raver
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,435
- Reaction score
- 2
- City & State/Province
- Dodge City, Moscowchusetts
If you are from SC and go to NY knowing full well what the place is like regarding gun laws and DO NOT have an NY permit and compliant firearm, you DESERVE what you get. He ASKED FOR IT, plain and simple!
If you don't like a states firearms laws, you have easy choices: follow the rules, don't bring anything, or simply stay out!
Be happy about the freedoms you have where you are, because plenty of places have significantly less than you do- DESPITE what voters, protesters, lobbyists, and law abiding citizens try to change.
If you don't like a states firearms laws, you have easy choices: follow the rules, don't bring anything, or simply stay out!
Be happy about the freedoms you have where you are, because plenty of places have significantly less than you do- DESPITE what voters, protesters, lobbyists, and law abiding citizens try to change.
armaborealis
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 0
I was facetious in my first comment but it is really rather sad. In many ways, America is splitting. The "ban" states are getting more restrictive. The free states are liberalizing their laws and restoring liberty to the people.
I have some thoughts for the other comments here...
For those who advocate strict adherence to the law at all times: Is there ever a time in which opposing the law is the moral thing to do? I would argue yes, absolutely. The extreme case is a genocide like the holocaust, the Soviet "liquidation" of the Kulaks, or Rwanda. If the governments demands that all good Germans turn in Jews for a trip to the ovens, do you follow the law?
There are plenty of examples of civil disobedience -- many of which landed the adherents in jail cells, mind you -- in American history. Obviously the Civil Rights movement comes to mind. I'd argue that MLK, Jr was pretty effective at lobbying from behind bars: google "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." Likewise the images of Bull Connor unleashing police dogs on peaceful marchers (who were then taken to jail...) seared into America's consciousness. Even a law which is passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the US Supreme Court may be no law at all, morally: read about the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dredd Scott decision. If you lived in the 19th century and found a fugitive slave family on your doorstep begging for Christian charity, would you take them in, clothe them, feed them, teach them to read, and hide them, all of which would be against the law... or call the sheriff to send them back to the plantation?
Many on these forums have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The 14th Amendment says that the fundamental, natural, specifically enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the States. Moreover, if we believe in the values of the framers of the Constitution, we believe that the core rights of religion, speech, self defense, security of one's person and papers, etc are fundamental natural rights granted by our creator to all people. Could we look on and shrug and say, "well, tyrants will be tyrants; I'm glad I don't live in that state!" if a state were to, say, start banning religion, criminalized petitioning the government for redress of grievances, or unreasonably and randomly searched people's persons and homes?
From a practical political level, we need to be careful writing off huge swaths of the country if we plan on securing the future of gun rights. 8 million live in NY, 38 million in CA, 9 million in NJ, 3.5 million in CT, 5.8 million in MD, and 6.6 million in MA. That's over 70 million Americans, or around a quarter of the country's population. I've already heard people from restrictive states being willing to compromise at the federal level; someone in CA, for example, has already lost private sales and regular mags and "assault weapons" so why not trade them away at the federal level for some sop? Our rights will not be secure if we've already lost 25%+ of the population right off the bat and the American culture of freedom, self-sufficiency, and gun rights is systematically extinguished one generation at a time.
I'm not saying that the individual in this particular case had any lofty high minded ideals. He might have been a gang banger, and it was irresponsible to leave a firearm unattended in a hotel room. I personally am not comfortable writing off the liberties of a quarter of my fellow Americans, nor am I willing to support the idea of letting states infringe drastically on a specifically enumerated natural right.
I have some thoughts for the other comments here...
For those who advocate strict adherence to the law at all times: Is there ever a time in which opposing the law is the moral thing to do? I would argue yes, absolutely. The extreme case is a genocide like the holocaust, the Soviet "liquidation" of the Kulaks, or Rwanda. If the governments demands that all good Germans turn in Jews for a trip to the ovens, do you follow the law?
There are plenty of examples of civil disobedience -- many of which landed the adherents in jail cells, mind you -- in American history. Obviously the Civil Rights movement comes to mind. I'd argue that MLK, Jr was pretty effective at lobbying from behind bars: google "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." Likewise the images of Bull Connor unleashing police dogs on peaceful marchers (who were then taken to jail...) seared into America's consciousness. Even a law which is passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the US Supreme Court may be no law at all, morally: read about the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dredd Scott decision. If you lived in the 19th century and found a fugitive slave family on your doorstep begging for Christian charity, would you take them in, clothe them, feed them, teach them to read, and hide them, all of which would be against the law... or call the sheriff to send them back to the plantation?
Many on these forums have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The 14th Amendment says that the fundamental, natural, specifically enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the States. Moreover, if we believe in the values of the framers of the Constitution, we believe that the core rights of religion, speech, self defense, security of one's person and papers, etc are fundamental natural rights granted by our creator to all people. Could we look on and shrug and say, "well, tyrants will be tyrants; I'm glad I don't live in that state!" if a state were to, say, start banning religion, criminalized petitioning the government for redress of grievances, or unreasonably and randomly searched people's persons and homes?
From a practical political level, we need to be careful writing off huge swaths of the country if we plan on securing the future of gun rights. 8 million live in NY, 38 million in CA, 9 million in NJ, 3.5 million in CT, 5.8 million in MD, and 6.6 million in MA. That's over 70 million Americans, or around a quarter of the country's population. I've already heard people from restrictive states being willing to compromise at the federal level; someone in CA, for example, has already lost private sales and regular mags and "assault weapons" so why not trade them away at the federal level for some sop? Our rights will not be secure if we've already lost 25%+ of the population right off the bat and the American culture of freedom, self-sufficiency, and gun rights is systematically extinguished one generation at a time.
I'm not saying that the individual in this particular case had any lofty high minded ideals. He might have been a gang banger, and it was irresponsible to leave a firearm unattended in a hotel room. I personally am not comfortable writing off the liberties of a quarter of my fellow Americans, nor am I willing to support the idea of letting states infringe drastically on a specifically enumerated natural right.
Midnight Raver
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,435
- Reaction score
- 2
- City & State/Province
- Dodge City, Moscowchusetts
It just bums me out that we had basic firearms laws at first here, then despite the voters it was the politicians that made our laws worse. Certaiin "career" politicians. Even the basic ones were radically changed back in 1998 so that FID cards(rifles + shotguns) were no longer for life, only 5 years. High cap bans, compliance list, it goes on and on. When laws vary from city to town in your own state you tend to see other places that people have vast freedoms in as a different world. Being in the birthplace of the American revolution looks more like a sick joke when a majority vote still can't yield what people want- then again they seem to outvote with the "minority" vote...
be forewarned, I have had a dreadful premonition that they are grooming "our" Governor Deval Patrick for the POTUS slot- Lord help us all if he is the next Demokratic candidate!
be forewarned, I have had a dreadful premonition that they are grooming "our" Governor Deval Patrick for the POTUS slot- Lord help us all if he is the next Demokratic candidate!
bigfutz
Well-Known Fanatic
I will assume they "traced" it to him either:
1) Through the secret government supposedly non-existent database,
2) By tracing the serial number from the manufacturer through legal FFL transfers,
3) By the hotel register.
Yes, he is stupid and irresponsible. Yes, he was breaking local law. Yes, those laws are unconstitutional. So, vote to change the law; in the meantime, don't be stupid.
11B3XCIB
Well-Known Fanatic
bigfutz said:
When people say "there isn't a registry" it makes me laugh. True, there's no magic computer that, when you enter a name, it will list all the guns that person has bought from an FFL, but it's as simple as tracing where the gun has been once it left the manufacturer. It's not that hard to find out the last person that bought it on paper. It's a de-facto registry. If you buy a gun in a private sale and the seller makes you fill out a bill of sale, I highly doubt they'll keep you anonymous if the police ever knock on their door looking for that firearm, either. I'm not trying to derail the thread (too late?) but guns bought over-the-counter are easy enough to track down, provided they're not stolen or sold off.
When I got pulled over a couple years ago and (illegally) searched, I did some research afterwards to better protect my rights in the future. Since the cop ran my pistol's serial number, I tried to figure out what they actually saw when calling the number in. I found out at the squad car level, they just see if it's been reported stolen. However, I did call some number...wish I would have written this down, but at some local government level office in Columbia, a lady told me regardless of a National registry, they can still easily look up 4473s somehow or another.
armaborealis
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 0
The trace system is generally pretty quick.
If you find a gun with a serial number then you go to the manufacturer and ask what distributer it went to. Most manufacturers have computerize databases so this takes minutes at most. Then you go to the distributor and ask what retailer it went to. This is also quick as most distributers have computer databases for their sales too. Then you go to the retailer and pull the 4473. Some larger retailers like Walmart computerize this too.
The whole process can be done in just a few hours or less.
If the FFL is out of business, then all their 4473s go to the ATF for storage. It is unclear whether these forms have been put into a database. They are not supposed to... but who knows? The ATF has said it does not consider scanning the 4473s to be a "registry" so I am sure they are at least digitized, the only question is whether they are searchable. Obviously this is even faster.
Where the trace goes "cold" is if the person on the 4473 sold or transferred the gun in a private sale. In this case it is hard to follow the chain of custody and requires actual detective work. This is why the gun grabbers need to end private paperless sales. It isn't about the background check; its about the paper trail. That is also why they need to criminalize a failure to report a lost or stolen gun; if you can claim your gun was lost or stolen then it could provide a way to evade the paper trail as well.
If you find a gun with a serial number then you go to the manufacturer and ask what distributer it went to. Most manufacturers have computerize databases so this takes minutes at most. Then you go to the distributor and ask what retailer it went to. This is also quick as most distributers have computer databases for their sales too. Then you go to the retailer and pull the 4473. Some larger retailers like Walmart computerize this too.
The whole process can be done in just a few hours or less.
If the FFL is out of business, then all their 4473s go to the ATF for storage. It is unclear whether these forms have been put into a database. They are not supposed to... but who knows? The ATF has said it does not consider scanning the 4473s to be a "registry" so I am sure they are at least digitized, the only question is whether they are searchable. Obviously this is even faster.
Where the trace goes "cold" is if the person on the 4473 sold or transferred the gun in a private sale. In this case it is hard to follow the chain of custody and requires actual detective work. This is why the gun grabbers need to end private paperless sales. It isn't about the background check; its about the paper trail. That is also why they need to criminalize a failure to report a lost or stolen gun; if you can claim your gun was lost or stolen then it could provide a way to evade the paper trail as well.
