Pastor buys AR-15 at raffle so he could destroy it

[Lost_Sheep]

He could have sold the gun and given the money to the poor. It isn’t as if he somehow reduced gun deaths by doing this. It’s just grandstanding.

 

[J_Peterson]

The “spirit of the law” usually seems to mean “people the government or majority likes go free, the ones they don’t like do time”. It’s nonsense. Especially since, as a gun control guy, this guy was probably for the very law he broke.

So you don’t see the difference between someone who transfers a gun to another person so that it can be destroyed and a someone who transfers a gun to another person so it can be used?

Also, how many people have been jailed, as opposed to fined, for breaking this law?

 

[Usige]

Does the H.L. Mencken school of Democracy not understand the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law? I really don’t think this warrants jail time considering the plan was to destroy the gun.

What does what he planned to do with it have to do with the “spirit of the law”?

The spirit of the law is that no one can be trusted with a gun without a background check. The pastor had no way to know that the person he gave it to for safe keeping was not someone that would be bared from owning it. The whole premise is that only the government is capable of determining if someone is a danger, not the pastor. So simply because he and others have an irrational hatred of guns, then they are exempt from believing only the government is able to render judgment?

Would you have been as lenient if someone asked their friend to hold their gun while moving to a nw house and was convicted or are you only excused if you want to destroy something legally obtained? I’m sure you would pitch in to bail out a hunter that accidently ran afoul this law also, correct?

 

[J_Peterson]

What does what he planned to do with it have to do with the “spirit of the law”?

The spirit of the law is that no one can be trusted with a gun without a background check. The pastor had no way to know that the person he gave it to for safe keeping was not someone that would be bared from owning it. The whole premise is that only the government is capable of determining if someone is a danger, not the pastor. So simply because he and others have an irrational hatred of guns, then they are exempt from believing only the government is able to render judgment?

Would you have been as lenient if someone asked their friend to hold their gun while moving to a nw house and was convicted or are you only excused if you want to destroy something legally obtained? I’m sure you would pitch in to bail out a hunter that accidently ran afoul this law also, correct?

I support this guy because he is making an anti-gun statement and that’s the only reason I’d help out with any fine he may get. No need to read that much into it.

It seems that in his fervor he screwed up and forgot the law. He should have done it the legal way. I simply don’t think it deserves jail time. He is not a danger to society, nobody got hurt, there is very little chance anybody will get hurt by this. Give him a fine and move on. There are already too many people in jail. We currently lead the world in incarceration rates, that’s not something we should try to best ourselves at.

 

[Suudy]

You shoot sausages?

They are trap/skeet competitions where the winners of events get a pound of sausage. The sausage is usually homemade by the club. The competitions are fundraisers. You buy a punch card for $20, which grants entry to 4 events. For each card you buy, you get a pound of sausage. For each event you win, you get a pound of sausage. And occasionally, one of the clay pigeons is a white one, and if you hit that, you get a pound of sausage.

I hope they don’t shoot bacon. That would be barbaric.

We do have bacon shoots, too! But sausage is much easier to make.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So you don’t see the difference between someone who transfers a gun to another person so that it can be destroyed and a someone who transfers a gun to another person so it can be used?

That’s a moot question here. The fact is the pastor simply gave the rifle to someone else when he was the registered owner and he was responsible for it. (He could not have taken possession of it originally without the legal paperwork designating him as the legal owner). He broke the law by giving the rifle to someone else, even if it was with the best of intentions and even if it was just temporary.

I recently purchased an AR-15 of my own. I had to sign paperwork saying I would not be giving the firearm to someone else (it’s called a “straw purchase”). Even if I intended on giving it away as a Christmas gift to my brother, we would both have to go into a dealership with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and legally transfer ownership from me to him.

Legally, I could not even just loan it to him for the weekend so he could try it out.

The liberals want all these anti-gun laws, and then they cry when they get caught up in them.

 

[ucfengr]

Sounds a bit like vengeance to me.

I didn’t say he should get a pass. In fact I said he made a mistake and should have checked with a lawyer. Does the H.L. Mencken school of Democracy not understand the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law? I really don’t think this warrants jail time considering the plan was to destroy the gun. I’m betting he’ll get a fine, if the prosecution is willing to go forward. That, in my opinion, would do more good for the gun control side though so they may just let it go.

Of course, you don’t think it warrants jail time. The guy is on your side. In effect, it’s a form of “tribalism” where people of the right tribe are held to a different standard then everybody else. Another good example of this was the “Jim Crow” laws, the earliest of which were also gun control laws to ensure that blacks couldn’t defend themselves against the Klan (the action arm of the Democrat Party).

 

[J_Peterson]

That’s a moot question here. The fact is the pastor simply gave the rifle to someone else when he was the registered owner and he was responsible for it. (He could not have taken possession of it originally without the legal paperwork designating him as the legal owner). He broke the law by giving the rifle to someone else, even if it was with the best of intentions and even if it was just temporary.

I recently purchased an AR-15 of my own. I had to sign paperwork saying I would not be giving the firearm to someone else (it’s called a “straw purchase”). Even if I intended on giving it away as a Christmas gift to my brother, we would both have to go into a dealership with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and legally transfer ownership from me to him.

Legally, I could not even just loan it to him for the weekend so he could try it out.

The liberals want all these anti-gun laws, and then they cry when they get caught up in them.

The punishment is a fine and/or jail. Yes he (allegedly) broke the law . What shocks me is people thinking that he should go to jail for something that they don’t think should be illegal in the first place. If you think the law is unjust but you think someone should go to jail for it, that’s vengeance for holding an opposing political position. I think he should be fined, that fits the crime.

 

[Seamus_L]

This was the Christian thing to do ? Was this one of those many instances where we never knew what the Christian thing to do was until very recently ?

 

[J_Peterson]

Of course, you don’t think it warrants jail time. The guy is on your side. In effect, it’s a form of “tribalism” where people of the right tribe are held to a different standard then everybody else. Another good example of this was the “Jim Crow” laws, the earliest of which were also gun control laws to ensure that blacks couldn’t defend themselves against the Klan (the action arm of the Democrat Party).

I don’t want this guy in jail because I am, to a large extent, against prison itself. I think we need a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system, I think prison should be reserved for only the most severe crimes, I even think we need to make prisoners more comfortable.

Honestly I think my opinions on prison are far more radical than my positions on gun control.

 

[Padres1969]

I hope he goes to jail. He needs to experience the full effect of the laws he supports.

That assumes he violated the law. So far he hasn’t even been charged with anything. I mean if he is simply storing the gun at the other person’s home I don’t see how that runs afoul of the law. It’s still his gun and no ownership has been transferred. After all, he still intends to have the gun destroyed so it’s clearly still his gun.

As for him “wasting funds” as some have suggested. He gave $3000 to the girl’s youth softball team to fund their $6000 trip. That doesn’t seem like a waste to me. His donation helped out this particular group in the community and helped them reach their goal. That he won the rifle he intends to re-purpose (of which their was no guarentee) is just frosting on the cake. And indeed the church also report all funds that were spent on that endeavor and then some have been received by donors, both local and otherwise to further other aspects of their ministry.

 

[ucfengr]

That assumes he violated the law. So far he hasn’t even been charged with anything. I mean if he is simply storing the gun at the other person’s home I don’t see how that runs afoul of the law. It’s still his gun and no ownership has been transferred. After all, he still intends to have the gun destroyed so it’s clearly still his gun.

If you read the law, it’s pretty clear he violated it. You are not allowed to transfer “possession”, even temporarily, of a firearm to any person without conducting a federal background check. That’s how “universal background checks” work. He supports them, he should live with them. Bad laws get passed because the people who support them assume they won’t be applied to them, and in most cases, they’re right, but they will be applied to everyone else…

 

[Expatreprocedit]

the Klan (the action arm of the Democrat Party).

Credibility plummeting.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The punishment is a fine and/or jail. Yes he (allegedly) broke the law . What shocks me is people thinking that he should go to jail for something that they don’t think should be illegal in the first place. If you think the law is unjust but you think someone should go to jail for it, that’s vengeance for holding an opposing political position. I think he should be fined, that fits the crime.

Personally, I don’t like these overzealous gun laws. In my opinion, just about all of them are in violation of the Second Amendment. But if people insist on having these laws, then everyone should be expected to obey them. Do I see the Pastor getting caught in a law he supported as vengeance? No. Why should I? The law is the law is the law. Why do some people demand there be a law against something they don’t like and then somehow think they are to be exempt from it?

I’m against marijuana. But if I were to find a bag of weed lying on a park bench and decide to pick it up and take it to the police station to turn it in, I’m still guilty of possession while I have it on me.

 

[ARSpade]

That assumes he violated the law. So far he hasn’t even been charged with anything. I mean if he is simply storing the gun at the other person’s home I don’t see how that runs afoul of the law. It’s still his gun and no ownership has been transferred. After all, he still intends to have the gun destroyed so it’s clearly still his gun.

Nope.

ceasefireoregon.org/bills/oregon-firearms-safety-act/#require

Do all gun transfers require background checks?
Some transfers do not require background check, such as:

Transfers by or to law enforcement,
Transfers between immediate family members,
Temporary transfers for self-defense, hunting, and target-shooting; and
Temporary transfers that occur exclusively while in the presence of the owner.

Also, we’re not concerned with ownership, we’re concerned with possession. Almost all gun laws refer to “possession”.

If the guy wanted to follow the law, all he had to do was go to an FFL and pay like $20. And the anti-gunners have always said it isn’t hard or much of a burden.

 

[Usige]

I support this guy because he is making an anti-gun statement and that’s the only reason I’d help out with any fine he may get. No need to read that much into it.

Which is too say that you think that he is some kinda folk hero for making an anti-gun statement. It certainly speak to the true purpose of these laws. Not to keep guns out of criminal’s hands, but rather to keep guns out of anyone’s hands.

It seems that in his fervor he screwed up and forgot the law. He should have done it the legal way. I simply don’t think it deserves jail time. He is not a danger to society, nobody got hurt, there is very little chance anybody will get hurt by this. Give him a fine and move on. There are already too many people in jail. We currently lead the world in incarceration rates, that’s not something we should try to best ourselves at.

What is the purpose of charging the owner/seller though? If I sell my rifle to my son, have I hurt anyone? I’ve known him his whole life and yet UBCs make me a criminal if I don’t have a background check on my son.

You ask why some support throwing the book at him. Most conservatives have said that we need to enforce existing laws and not keep passing new ones. Well here is one of those new laws and… suprise… suprise… liberals don’t want to enforce it against someone that supports their agenda. If this was a hunter that lent his shotgun to a friend during duck season, I’m sure we would hear “well, he should have known the law”.

Does he need to go to jail. No, but give him the $6000 fine. Make him pay it himself. If he feels so strongly about keeping this one gun off the strrets then let him show his pride in spending $9000 on a 6-700 gun. He better save up because I suspect he will run afoul of it again because I doubt he will make sure the “gun” is actually destroyed if he has it turned into art work [at least the part considered a gun by the feds]. Unfortunately liberals don’t even know the existing laws that they keep piling on top off with yet more laws that only bite law abiding people.

 

[John_Lazarus]

They are trap/skeet competitions where the winners of events get a pound of sausage. The sausage is usually homemade by the club. The competitions are fundraisers. You buy a punch card for $20, which grants entry to 4 events. For each card you buy, you get a pound of sausage. ** For each event you win, you get a pound of sausage. And occasionally, one of the clay pigeons is a white one, and if you hit that, you get a pound of sausage.**

We do have bacon shoots, too! But sausage is much easier to make.

So, when a champion is declared, do they say, “We have a wiener!!” ?

Sorry, my humour is the wurst.

 

[exnihilo]

The primary purpose of cars is driving. The primary purpose of knives is cutting food or other inanimate objects.

The primary purpose of guns is to kill.

As a side note, the rest of the Western world is, by and large, utterly baffled by the USA’s attitude towards guns.

As for the purpose of guns it has been pointed out they are used for sport. They are also kept for self defense. The biggest refutation of the argument you seem to be making is the fact that the vast majority of citizen owned guns never kill a person. If the only or chief purpose of guns was to unjustly kill people then most guns would be failures at their primary purpose.

I’m talking about firearms that are capable of firing a lot of rounds very quickly, the kind favored by soldiers (which I have no problem with if they are fighting for a worthy cause) and disgruntled disturbed people interested in killing a lot of innocent people. That is what sets an AR-15 and similar weapons apart.

All semi automatic guns are designed to fire lots of rounds at least as quickly as you can pull the trigger. What really makes a difference is the capacity of the magazine. You can buy a 50 round magazine for a Glock 9mm pistol. Basically there is no difference in the ability of an AR-15 to put out a lot of rounds quickly compared to a semi automatic pistol.

I’m not sure why you give soldiers, agents of the state, a pass. Soldiers have killed far more people than private citizens even if excluding the rare just wars.

 

[exnihilo]

Personally, I don’t like these overzealous gun laws. In my opinion, just about all of them are in violation of the Second Amendment. But if people insist on having these laws, then everyone should be expected to obey them. Do I see the Pastor getting caught in a law he supported as vengeance? No. Why should I? The law is the law is the law. Why do some people demand there be a law against something they don’t like and then somehow think they are to be exempt from it?

I agree. Almost all gun laws are clearly violations of the second amendment. I also think the pastor should spend time in jail. I think so because supporters of guns laws need to learn the reality of the world they have created. Their opinions seem to be based on a lack of knowledge. The laws they support chiefly impact ordinary folks who never commit a real crime but run afoul of an onerous gun law.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I agree. Almost all gun laws are clearly violations of the second amendment. I also think the pastor should spend time in jail. I think so because supporters of guns laws need to learn the reality of the world they have created. Their opinions seem to be based on a lack of knowledge. The laws they support chiefly impact ordinary folks who never commit a real crime but run afoul of an onerous gun law.

“I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.” -Ulysses S. Grant, Second Inaugural Address.