Restricted buyer

[Erud]

Jaywalking isn't a felony.

The question was; “So we should ignore the laws we do not agree with if I have this correct?”

Are you saying that you are willing to ignore lesser crimes/offenses that you might witness, just not felonies?

[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?

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.

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?[/quote]

So MYOB means he should have called the cops? But discussing it on a forum which has no bearing on the actual situation is somehow offensive to you and he should MYOB? SO which do you want? and if you do not want it discussed then you do have an option to not discuss it so in essence by choosing to discuss should you advise to yourself not be MYOB?

[Ghost]

I think all of you need to learn how to properly quote instead of this straw man quoting you got going on. Can’t tell who owns what.

Once that’s figured out. As presented it sounds like a straw man purchase. Unless he said he’s gonna shoot someone or some place, MYOB. Ain’t nobody got time fo dat.

Much like the incident on the side of the road that was posted in the other thread. Unless you are intimate with the situation MYOB.

Remember the Good Samaritan in Rochester who ended up shooting someone? He also should have MYOB.

[Holland&Holland]

I think all of you need to learn how to properly quote instead of this straw man quoting you got going on. Can’t tell who owns what.

Once that’s figured out. As presented it sounds like a straw man purchase. Unless he said he’s gonna shoot someone or some place, MYOB. Ain’t nobody got time fo dat.

Much like the incident on the side of the road that was posted in the other thread. Unless you are intimate with the situation MYOB.

Remember the Good Samaritan in Rochester who ended up shooting someone? He also should have MYOB.

That's the problem when too many quotes get stacked up and then you delete some and don't stop at the right spot. Besides, have to make sure you are paying attention.

[Ghost]

I think all of you need to learn how to properly quote instead of this straw man quoting you got going on. Can’t tell who owns what.

Once that’s figured out. As presented it sounds like a straw man purchase. Unless he said he’s gonna shoot someone or some place, MYOB. Ain’t nobody got time fo dat.

Much like the incident on the side of the road that was posted in the other thread. Unless you are intimate with the situation MYOB.

Remember the Good Samaritan in Rochester who ended up shooting someone? He also should have MYOB.

That's the problem when too many quotes get stacked up and then you delete some and don't stop at the right spot. Besides, have to make sure you are paying attention.

[Erud]

So MYOB means he should have called the cops? But discussing it on a forum which has no bearing on the actual situation is somehow offensive to you and he should MYOB? SO which do you want? and if you do not want it discussed then you do have an option to not discuss it so in essence by choosing to discuss should you advise to yourself not be MYOB?

Your quote-fu is bad, and I think you must only be reading parts of my posts. The part about calling the cops was for the OP who inserted himself into someone else’s business. If he was willing to insert himself that far because he thought a law was being broken, why not insert himself further to bring further law-breaking by this man to a halt? Now that he knows the guy is a prohibited person, his other guns are illegal too. It was more of a rhetorical question for him. My point remains that the correct course of action would have been to mind his own business. And not call the cops afterwards either, just to be crystal clear. I also clearly stated more than once that I am all for the discussion (no, not offended) we are having, just against him not minding his own business when this situation came up.

If bump stocks, full capacity magazines, etc are made illegal by future legislation, will you guys be turning your buddies that don’t surrender them over to law enforcement in the name of justice? Just in case it might be an attempt by the media to entrap you?

[Holland&Holland]

So MYOB means he should have called the cops? But discussing it on a forum which has no bearing on the actual situation is somehow offensive to you and he should MYOB? SO which do you want? and if you do not want it discussed then you do have an option to not discuss it so in essence by choosing to discuss should you advise to yourself not be MYOB?

If bump stocks, full capacity magazines, etc are made illegal by future legislation, will you guys be turning your buddies that don’t surrender them over to law enforcement in the name of justice? Just in case it might be an attempt by the media to entrap you?

Nope.

[Ghost]

So MYOB means he should have called the cops? But discussing it on a forum which has no bearing on the actual situation is somehow offensive to you and he should MYOB? SO which do you want? and if you do not want it discussed then you do have an option to not discuss it so in essence by choosing to discuss should you advise to yourself not be MYOB?

Your quote-fu is bad, and I think you must only be reading parts of my posts. The part about calling the cops was for the OP who inserted himself into someone else’s business. If he was willing to insert himself that far because he thought a law was being broken, why not insert himself further to bring further law-breaking by this man to a halt? Now that he knows the guy is a prohibited person, his other guns are illegal too. It was more of a rhetorical question for him. My point remains that the correct course of action would have been to mind his own business. And not call the cops afterwards either, just to be crystal clear. I also clearly stated more than once that I am all for the discussion (no, not offended) we are having, just against him not minding his own business when this situation came up.

If bump stocks, full capacity magazines, etc are made illegal by future legislation, will you guys be turning your buddies that don’t surrender them over to law enforcement in the name of justice? Just in case it might be an attempt by the media to entrap you?

What’s a bumpstock and I’m pretty sure those playboys aren’t stained to full capacity

[mmcnx2]

Most of you really don't get the issue. As far as MYOB - I don't give a flying F about the guy or his girl friend. But I do care about the charity - I support them financially and believe in their cause. They are not gun folks so I suspect they are ignorant of the details and the FFL they used is is a retired guy that I think does this once year for them and has to older than dirt - so he may not be the most diligent guy. I asked about the charity's exposure - I suspect the FFL would be the first line but wondered if the charity would also be on the hook, given they picked the FFL. If the charity is at risk - I would have no problem reaching out to them and suggesting they make some changes.

[Holland&Holland]

Most of you really don't get the issue. As far as MYOB - I don't give a flying F about the guy or his girl friend. But I do care about the charity - I support them financially and believe in their cause. They are not gun folks so I suspect they are ignorant of the details and the FFL they used is is a retired guy that I think does this once year for them and has to older than dirt - so he may not be the most diligent guy. I asked about the charity's exposure - I suspect the FFL would be the first line but wondered if the charity would also be on the hook, given they picked the FFL. If the charity is at risk - I would have no problem reaching out to them and suggesting they make some changes.

Of course there is exposure. IF something were to happen negatively with that gun and it was traced back to this transaction I doubt the charity has an agreement with the FFL which indemnifies them in this transaction. They would likely try to make the argument that they were relying on the expert services of the FFL and likely a good lawyer could make that stick but not without paying some legal fees I suspect.