Restricted buyer

[Rip Van Winkle]

Wait, he's asking ME to transfer it? The way I read the story, the OP was neither the winner, nor the one doing the transfer. He was just hanging around and offered his unsolicited legal advice on the situation. So yeah, still sounds like MYOB to me.

Been on the internet much?

[Erud]

Wait, he's asking ME to transfer it? The way I read the story, the OP was neither the winner, nor the one doing the transfer. He was just hanging around and offered his unsolicited legal advice on the situation. So yeah, still sounds like MYOB to me.

Been on the internet much?

Nope, first timer. I get the after-action internet discussion of what happened, I just don’t get the white-knighting of unconstitutional restrictions on firearm ownership.

[crbutler]

How is it unconstitutional?

If it is, get someone like the ACLU or the NRA to fight it.

Somehow, I would think if it does not pass constitutional muster it would have been gotten rid of by now. If you are just talking about your interpretation of what the law should be, fine have at it.

In this particular case, it’s on the FFL. What I would do is likely different than what someone else would do... but I tend to agree that it was likely a plant by some unscrupulous journalist.

[Erud]

How is it unconstitutional?

If it is, get someone like the ACLU or the NRA to fight it.

Somehow, I would think if it does not pass constitutional muster it would have been gotten rid of by now. If you are just talking about your interpretation of what the law should be, fine have at it.

In this particular case, it’s on the FFL. What I would do is likely different than what someone else would do... but I tend to agree that it was likely a plant by some unscrupulous journalist.

Well, I guess since the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution literally says; "Shall not be infringed", it seems that any infringements would be unconstitutional, regardless of court rulings. So it seems like I'm probably just talking about what the founding fathers thought the law should be. Those guys were pretty smart, maybe even smarter than judges that came along 200+ years later that don't particularly like the constitution. Getting most people to agree that a law is ok is a lot different than it actually passing constitutional muster.

Also, since the restricted buyer in the original post was apparently known to the OP and others as a hunter and current gun owner, what makes you think he was a media plant?

[crbutler]

Because who in their right mind says “I am a restricted person so we will put it in my girlfriends name.”? There are plenty of gun owners who are more than happy to send MSRs down the river.

Restriction of rights was considered a norm in the past for those who were not felt competent or responsible. A felon should either have restricted rights across the board, or no restrictions.

[Holland&Holland]

How is it unconstitutional?

If it is, get someone like the ACLU or the NRA to fight it.

Somehow, I would think if it does not pass constitutional muster it would have been gotten rid of by now. If you are just talking about your interpretation of what the law should be, fine have at it.

In this particular case, it’s on the FFL. What I would do is likely different than what someone else would do... but I tend to agree that it was likely a plant by some unscrupulous journalist.

Well, I guess since the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution literally says; "Shall not be infringed", it seems that any infringements would be unconstitutional, regardless of court rulings. So it seems like I'm probably just talking about what the founding fathers thought the law should be. Those guys were pretty smart, maybe even smarter than judges that came along 200+ years later that don't particularly like the constitution. Getting most people to agree that a law is ok is a lot different than it actually passing constitutional muster.

Also, since the restricted buyer in the original post was apparently known to the OP and others as a hunter and current gun owner, what makes you think he was a media plant?

Boy they could really use you in Florida today.

[Erud]

Because who in their right mind says “I am a restricted person so we will put it in my girlfriends name.”? There are plenty of gun owners who are more than happy to send MSRs down the river.

Restriction of rights was considered a norm in the past for those who were not felt competent or responsible. A felon should either have restricted rights across the board, or no restrictions.

I thought we were talking about constitutionality? Now you seem to be replacing that with what is "considered a norm". Like I said earlier; getting most people to agree that a law is ok is a lot different than it actually passing constitutional muster. There is a whole line of new gun control measures being worked on as we speak, will you be fine with them as long as most people like them?

[Holland&Holland]

Because who in their right mind says “I am a restricted person so we will put it in my girlfriends name.”? There are plenty of gun owners who are more than happy to send MSRs down the river.

Restriction of rights was considered a norm in the past for those who were not felt competent or responsible. A felon should either have restricted rights across the board, or no restrictions.

I thought we were talking about constitutionality? Now you seem to be replacing that with what is "considered a norm". Like I said earlier; getting most people to agree that a law is ok is a lot different than it actually passing constitutional muster. There is a whole line of new gun control measures being worked on as we speak, will you be fine with them as long as most people like them?

So we should ignore the laws we do not agree with if I have this correct?

[Erud]

Because who in their right mind says “I am a restricted person so we will put it in my girlfriends name.”? There are plenty of gun owners who are more than happy to send MSRs down the river.

Restriction of rights was considered a norm in the past for those who were not felt competent or responsible. A felon should either have restricted rights across the board, or no restrictions.

I thought we were talking about constitutionality? Now you seem to be replacing that with what is "considered a norm". Like I said earlier; getting most people to agree that a law is ok is a lot different than it actually passing constitutional muster. There is a whole line of new gun control measures being worked on as we speak, will you be fine with them as long as most people like them?

So we should ignore the laws we do not agree with if I have this correct?

Well yeah, sometimes. Particularly if they have absolutely nothing to do with you. This is where the MYOB concept comes in. Do you also attempt to stop every incident of jay walking you see, or is it just firearm-related laws that you find yourself unable to ignore?

[crbutler]

The point about a norm was in response to your comment on the founders.

They considered a poll tax or paying property taxes to meet constitutional muster, despite calling voting a right of free men and they routinely shipped folks to an asylum without court due process (a doc willing to admit and a family member willing to pay got it done back then)

My point being is that there have always been some restrictions on “rights” and I would rather we have reasonable restrictions on who can have guns than meaningless restrictions on what we can have along with who can have them. If we can’t stop a known psychopath from owning guns legally, then we will relatively shortly not have guns at all in the hands of ordinary citizens. If that means wife beaters are prohibited from owning, I guess I am not too worked up about it.

[Jack's My dog]

Well yeah, sometimes. Particularly if they have absolutely nothing to do with you. This is where the MYOB concept comes in. Do you also attempt to stop every incident of jay walking you see, or is it just firearm-related laws that you find yourself unable to ignore?

I don't worry too much about J walkers, but have dropped a couple dimes on what appeared to be drunk drivers. I think this presents an interesting dilemma, and I can honestly say I am conflicted on what the most moral course of action would be.

[Holland&Holland]

[quote="Erud"

Well yeah, sometimes. Particularly if they have absolutely nothing to do with you. This is where the MYOB concept comes in. Do you also attempt to stop every incident of jay walking you see, or is it just firearm-related laws that you find yourself unable to ignore?[/quote]

I think you need to re-read the OP's question. His question is what liability does the raffle runners have and what recourses after the fact.

[Erud]

[quote="Erud"

Well yeah, sometimes. Particularly if they have absolutely nothing to do with you. This is where the MYOB concept comes in. Do you also attempt to stop every incident of jay walking you see, or is it just firearm-related laws that you find yourself unable to ignore?

I think you need to re-read the OP's question. His question is what liability does the raffle runners have and what recourses after the fact.[/quote]

Yeah, I understand his question. I think you both need to re-read the whole concept of MYOB. He was not the raffle host, the transferee, or the transferor. Neither are you. Asking the question after the fact is fine, I have no issue with the discussion. It's the idea of someone inserting himself into a transaction between a guy that he apparently already knows to be a current gun owner and hunter, his GF, and a 3rd party that hosted a raffle that I don't understand. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned. Did he follow up with a call to the local PD to let them know that the guy was prohibited from owning firearms so they could raid his house and confiscate his other guns? If not, why not?

[Lumpy]

How do you ever get a domestic abuse order lifted, or at least mitigated?

Re. constitutionality: the 2nd was of course no protection against state laws until McDonald; and even then the court bent over backwards to say "but this doesn't invalidate state gun laws across the board". Since then the Court has treated attempts to gain certiorari for gun cases like they had Ebola, leading Justice Thomas to bitterly complain that the Second is an "orphan amendment".

[photogpat]

Jaywalking isn't a felony.