Lumpy wrote:"Buy guns illegally". I for one dislike the phrase "illegal guns" because that implies the guns themselves are contraband. And how many news articles about police raids on alleged drug dealers and gang members feel compelled to add that "guns were found/seized". Only in Kalifornia is it likely that the guns themselves are actually illegal.
Ghost wrote:Lumpy wrote:"Buy guns illegally". I for one dislike the phrase "illegal guns" because that implies the guns themselves are contraband. And how many news articles about police raids on alleged drug dealers and gang members feel compelled to add that "guns were found/seized". Only in Kalifornia is it likely that the guns themselves are actually illegal.
Maybe I need to set up a sanctuary house where these “illegal” guns can flourish and live their lives.
Holland&Holland wrote:So.... Can we arrest them for attempting an illegal transfer or is that not politically correct?
andrewP wrote:Holland&Holland wrote:So.... Can we arrest them for attempting an illegal transfer or is that not politically correct?
Unless they were actual prohibited persons, would the transfers have been illegal? They were representing themselves as prohibited in order to attempt to get someone else to allow a supposedly illegal transfer to occur, but does that misrepresentation in fact make an otherwise legal transfer illegal? I'm absolutely with you in spirit, but I'm curious whether an actual crime would have been committed in this case, or just something that was perceived to be a crime by one party in the transfer.
Bet it would depend on who was charging them. I have a neighbor while on the farm shot someone's dog, they called the game warden and the guy said that he thought it was a Wolf stocking his livestock, he was charged for shooting a Wolf and now lives in town. Oh wait, a Democrat, it's ok then. I can't understand why they get away with everything.Holland&Holland wrote:So.... Can we arrest them for attempting an illegal transfer or is that not politically correct?
Holland&Holland wrote:Seriously you don’t think they are prohibited?
andrewP wrote:Holland&Holland wrote:Seriously you don’t think they are prohibited?
I'm not assuming facts not in evidence and asking a (mostly) theoretical question out of curiosity, that's all.
harryset wrote:The Anti's are complaining that the problem with the test was that they volunteered information that would disqualify them from being able to legally obtain a firearm. They want them to go back and lie to see if that changes the outcome. . .
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests