Tribesman, all anyone is asking you to do is use the quote button when replying like everyone else does. I don't know if it is an evasive thing or you just have to be a special snowflake, but it's really getting very silly.

I am afraid that is not the case Takeda, all some people are saying is that the use of the post reply button is done with some nefarious intention.

Not sure exactly what the NYS penal code says but normally unless she knew the guns were going to be used in a crime then no, she can't be. She can only be charged with violating firearms regulations by purchasing them for someone who couldn't legally own them.

No law can prevent someone from breaking the law. She lied when she purchased the .223 and shotgun from Gander Mt. breaking the law, and she broke the law again by giving them to a felon.

The simple solution is to simply not reply to his posts. :|\\

I've admitted I was wrong about that, and apologized.

All I'm asking now is that you use the 'Quote' button like everyone else.

Flood tubes one and two...

That does not answer the question.
Take Irish regulations for an example, if I was to illegally sell a legally held weapon of my own to a person who is not allowed to own firearms how soon could that crime be detected?

I will try and avoid using the post reply button when I post a reply, but don't be surprised if I read to the end of a topic and hit the button as it just means I read to the end of the topic and hit the button, no more and no less.

In theory never. Until those firearms are caught being used in a crime or you or someone else tells the authorities that you have broken the law no one would know. No regulation would prevent someone from breaking the regulation.

Read it again, then try again as the answer is "in theory rather quickly"

How? If you own a legal item and sell it illegally there is no record of the transfer and the only people who know of it are the buyer and the seller. Unless one of those two individuals demonstrates by action or statement that an illegal action has taken place law enforcement does not know a crime has been committed.

It's Schrodinger's Gun, until that weapon is used illegally an outside observer will not know the state of the weapon: the gun is both legal and illegal at the same time.

I knew that Jarmin was up to no good!

Oh wait...

Schrodinger, not Schroeder...my bad... :oops:

"When I hear about Schroedinger's gun, I reach for my cat." - Steven Hawkings.

:D

Read it again.

To refresh your memory.
1.Would registration of firearms and regulation of all gun sales have prevented in any way her turning two of the murderers weapons over to a convicted felon?
2.Take Irish regulations for an example, if I was to illegally sell a legally held weapon of my own to a person who is not allowed to own firearms how soon could that crime be detected?

Try again.

Now as a contrast try and compare that to the NRA idiots database proposals which are so seriously hobbled they would give you the "In theory never.".

We are going in circles. No form of registration or regulation is going to prevent someone from giving something to someone else. I don't know what laws they have in Ireland but unless they specify that a deputy must be stationed with your legally owned firearm 24/7:365 there is nothing to prevent you from giving it to someone else.

Dawn Nguyen was legally allowed to purchase the firearms after undergoing her NICS background check. It wasn't discovered that she broke the law by giving the weapons to a felon till 3 years later when they were used in a crime. No piece of paper was going to stand between Nguyen and Spengler blocking the transfer of those weapons.

That is because you are not reading what is written.
Plus you show there is another element......

So you are argueing without the faintest idea what you are argueing for or against which contributes to you running in circles

So are you saying the NRA proposal is a very silly idea?
I agree, the NRA proposal is a very silly idea, unless of course they have other bits of paper to go with the piece of paper they want.

BTW
She was not legally allowed which is why she is charged with the illegal purchase for which she can face 5 years in prison.
If she was legally allowed it wouldn't be a false declaration and she wouldn't be up on a felony charge for the purchase would she.

Well then fill me in, what law does Ireland have that prevents someone from illegally transferring firearms? What law prevents the physical act of transferring them?


Which NRA proposal? There have been several lately.

I'm skeptical of any proposal to regulate the ownership or sale of firearms beyond crazy things like MGs or ATs, because it is so easy to circumvent.


It would be impossible for anyone to know that she was going to use her legal right to purchase a firearm to transfer it in an illegal way. No law, registry or slip of paper would prevent her from doing that.

Registration and renewal, you can of course illegally transfer them, but you will be caught very quickly.

A list of nuts:yep: which is of course useless without lots of other lists.

She would have known.

Registration and renewal would have told her that she was going to get caught if she went ahead with the illegal transfer, the knowledge that you will definately get caught is a good way of preventing some people doing silly things like that.

Every three years apparently, three years is a long time to commit a crime(s). So between the the time that Spengler committed the crime and the time Nguyen purchased the guns would have been equal to the time Ireland requires for renewal of registration. So a Irish type registration would have reduced the window for this crime to be committed by zero.


Police already have lists of people convinced of violent crime regardless if metal illness is a factor or not, the problem is that it is difficult for police to insure that they do not break the law by committing once legal acts now denied to them as felons.

This database (the NCIC) is already used to prevent the direct sale of firearms to criminals (via the NICS).

So the problem isn't regulations or list it's the criminals.


So? Is she law enforcement? Would she have turned herself in for breaking the law? Of course the criminals know the law is broken, but they are fine with it because they are criminals who break the law.


No it would have told her she would need to get the guns back for a day in three years (assuming you need to present the guns at the renewal). Or she could have reported the guns lost, stolen or destroyed before her registration renewal or after it had lapsed.

No since the guaranteed detection of Nguyens crime may have prevented her from commiting that crime in the first place.

Do they also have a list of other things needed to match against those lists as they all pretty useless unless they are combined and comprehensive.

So it doesn't cover sales like this one, or gun fairs or second hand sales or sales where the dealer is not registered.
Bloody big pile of holes isn't it.
Criminals love easy ways to get around restrictions don't they and you wish to kindly keep all the holes for the criminals to use.

So your statement doesn't stand does it.

No she is a criminal, criminals are not supposed to be able to buy guns under your current regulations are they, that means your current regulations don't work.

Ah..... so she would have had to go up to a convicted murderer and ask him to simply hand over his illegal weapons to her...right:doh:

Nice way for her to give up her right to ever own guns again isn't it, plus a nice way to tell the police there are some guns they should be looking for.
Hey she could just have invited some extra criminal charges on herself for good measure.


If the only problem is criminals there should be no regulations on anything.

My mind is turning to jello..o...o.