First Victim of Obama the king Orders

[george]

It would be nice to know if he ever had or applied for an FFL. If he did apply for an FFL and was not given one or turned down but still bought and sold a few firearms would he still be considered as in business? Pretty crude form of gun control if you ask me. What next maybe an executive order disallowing the private transfer of firearms even through an FFL and then curtail the amount of FFLs out there?
I guess in my opinion if he had an FFL and it was pulled or if he applied for and was denied I would say he's not in business it's a hobby.

[jdege]

What matters is that the BATF's definitions for who is "in the business" with respect to whom they will issue FFLs and for who is "in the business" with respect to who they will prosecute for not having an FFL should be the same.

I disagree. What matters is that this guy was in the business of selling guns without an FFL. I don't know where ATF's threshold for "being in the business is" but I am absolutely certain that I am not in that category and that the guy in question is.

How can you be so certain, when the BATF has consistently refused to define exactly what is or is not "being in the business"?

Here's some Latin for you:

malum in se: something that is wrong, in and of itself
malum prohibitum: something that is wrong only because the law says it is
mens rea: or in full, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".

I don't know about this guy, but what has he been accused of? Has he:

• Harmed someone with a firearm?
• Provided a firearm to someone who has harmed another?
• Provided a firearm to someone who was likely to harm another?

These are questions that nobody is even asking. We're not discussing what acts he might have committed that were malum in se, we're discussing acts that are at best malum prohibitum.

Now as for mens rea, was he knowingly engaged in the business, knowing that he was required to have a license? Or did he honestly believe that a license wasn't required for the sort of business he was engaged in?

If it was the latter, he had no mens rea, and under fundamental principles of justice, his act would not have been considered criminal, back when we had a legal system that actually dispensed justice.

So in my mind, the critical question was whether he honestly believed that a license wasn't required for the sort of business he was engaged in. That BATF has refused to provide an objective definition means there's a lot of grey area, here. And if he, as have so many, had his license pulled because he wasn't in the business, he may well have honestly believed that a license wasn't required.

I am sick and tired of BATF reinterpreting the law on a case-by-case basis, in whichever way is most convenient for them at the moment.

[Hmac]

Here's some Latin for you:

malum in se: something that is wrong, in and of itself
malum prohibitum: something that is wrong only because the law says it is
mens rea: or in full, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".

I don't know about this guy, but what has he been accused of?

Qui ita rupit vincula legis XVIII US Code § CMXXII

[LePetomane]

Here's some Latin. Taurum Faeces

[MJY65]

malum in se: something that is wrong, in and of itself
malum prohibitum: something that is wrong only because the law says it is
mens rea: or in full, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".

While those are correct legal definitions, the first category does not really exist. The act of killing another human being is wrong, only because the law defines the specific circumstances under which it is legal / illegal. The distinction between murder and justifiable self defense exist only because the law says so.

[jdege]

malum in se: something that is wrong, in and of itself
malum prohibitum: something that is wrong only because the law says it is
mens rea: or in full, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".

While those are correct legal definitions, the first category does not really exist. The act of killing another human being is wrong, only because the law defines the specific circumstances under which it is legal / illegal. The distinction between murder and justifiable self defense exist only because the law says so.

That is the fundamental legalistic misunderstanding, yes. Post and parcel of the utilitarianism rejection of the concept of natural rights.

No, the law as encoded in statute and precedent does not define what is our what is not right. It is quite possible, and not uncommon, for the law to violate what is good and proper. And when it does, it is the law that is wrong.

Fundamental rights are not legal concepts. They are meta-legal concepts, which inspire the law, or resistance to it.

[Hmac]

That is the fundamental legalistic misunderstanding, yes. Post and parcel of the utilitarianism rejection of the concept of natural rights.

No, the law as encoded in statute and precedent does not define what is our what is not right. It is quite possible, and not uncommon, for the law to violate what is good and proper. And when it does, it is the law that is wrong.

Fundamental rights are not legal concepts. They are meta-legal concepts, which inspire the law, or resistance to it.

Uh huh. Tell it to the judge.

[xd ED]

That is the fundamental legalistic misunderstanding, yes. Post and parcel of the utilitarianism rejection of the concept of natural rights.

No, the law as encoded in statute and precedent does not define what is our what is not right. It is quite possible, and not uncommon, for the law to violate what is good and proper. And when it does, it is the law that is wrong.

Fundamental rights are not legal concepts. They are meta-legal concepts, which inspire the law, or resistance to it.

So, it's not whether the guy was breaking the law as codified, it's an issue of that particular law not meeting your approval.

Good Luck with that.