Pastor gambles to win AR15 so he can destroy it then gets bit by gun laws!

[maxmayhem]

i hope they prosecute him and he gets fired for misusing the church funds to promote a political agenda.

Best result: he gets fired, he and the other guy get a misdemeanor, and the gun's life is spared

 

[Cameramonkey]

Probably not. I didn't see that he had transferred ownership to anyone else, whether the original owner was listed as himself or his church. He just gave it to someone else for safekeeping until he could destroy it. That was a violation of state law, not any federal laws that I'm aware of.

I think the question is couched on the fact that it wasnt HIS money, it was the church's. So could they say the church really bought it even though he claimed he was? In other words, if I took your credit card and bought a used car, would you consider it MY car (since my name is on the paperwork), or YOUR car since its your money?

I think he's fine because he had permission to use the money at his discretion. But then again, the .gov doesnt always think as rationally as we do.

 

[rhino]

I think we'll be disappointed with respect to criminal prosecution.

However, it's clear he was attempting to grandstand and look really cool in front of his congregation for doing this in a big theatrical production. Methinks that is unlikely now and at the very least he will emerge appearing as the douche bag that he is.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Probably not. I didn't see that he had transferred ownership to anyone else, whether the original owner was listed as himself or his church. He just gave it to someone else for safekeeping until he could destroy it. That was a violation of state law, not any federal laws that I'm aware of.

It's not because he transferred (or not) to anyone, on the 4473 he had to fill out to take possession the first question is "are you the actual purchaser" if acting as an agent for a business (per the instructions on the 4473 that includes corporation, company, association, partnership,or other such business entity) the person filling out the form is required to check yes and put their information on the form, but they are required to submit a statement under penalty of perjury stating "(A) the firearm is being acquired for the use of and will be the property of that business entity and (B) the name and addressof that business entity"

I think the question is couched on the fact that it wasnt HIS money, it was the church's. So could they say the church really bought it even though he claimed he was? In other words, if I took your credit card and bought a used car, would you consider it MY car (since my name is on the paperwork), or YOUR car since its your money?

I think he's fine because he had permission to use the money at his discretion. But then again, the .gov doesnt always think as rationally as we do.

Pretty much. Although even though he is allowed to use the money at his discretion, it is still the church's money therefor the tickets he purchased would belong to the church.

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, two thoughts come to mind for me:

1) He should be prosecuted and found guilty of violating state law, especially if there is evidence to show he supported that law.
For me, that's the end of the story. He did exactly what the law forbade, and if he supported the law, then he is presumed to have known what he supported, thus his violation was not in ignorance, even if that was an exemption from the law.

2) This I offer purely for reflection and consideration. It does not change #1, above. Discretionary enforcement of the law is one of the things we look at in our current and past iterations of police work, as citizens who do not do that work as a vocation. We talk about the difference between a peace officer and a law enforcement officer, with such examples as a bunch of kids (17ish, let's say) being caught with a few six-packs. In days gone by, one would have expected the local cop who caught them to make them open and pour out all of the beer, watching their money and their "good time" go draining into the sewer grate. He then would have either given them a ride home and ensured their parents knew, or if he caught them before they started drinking, just would have had them pour it out (difference being whether they could safely drive home or not) This is an example in my mind of a peace officer... he protects the peace.
By contrast, a LEO catching the same kids takes the beer into evidence, arrests them all, in-processes them to the local jail and hands over a report to the prosecutor for charges to be considered, the crime being minor in possession vs public intox, etc.

Would any of us look at the cause of justice being furthered by the prosecution of a bunch of kids wanting to experiment with alcohol? Or is that just pursuit of some award at the end of the year, sponsored by some MADD-type group?

For clarification, I am completely opposed to drunk driving, as that does put others at risk. A bunch of kids sitting around somewhere tossing back a few beers with a plan in place how to get home safely is not the proper equivalent, IMHO.

I oppose the effort to destroy this gun, and I oppose the law in question, but I can't see much difference between the two situations, if no harm to an innocent was risked or intended, either way.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[indiana36Bravo]

To be clear, what do you mean "bit right in the butt"? If you hope he gets prosecuted for failing to abide by universal background check legislation for safely storing a gun at someone else's home, I'll have to strongly disagree.

I may disagree with the guy politically, but that's a bad law and a bad application of it if he's arrested.

Rep inbound! So agree with you! Some are so stupid

 

[oldpink]

Rep inbound! So agree with you! Some are so stupid

If a pro-gunner did the exact same thing, he would already have been prosecuted, so why let this guy off?
It's a bad law, but there is no virtue in exempting the anti-gun douchebags from it, while leaving everyone else subject to it.
That's not magnanimous; that's inequality before the law, it's fighting with both hands and feet tied behind your back, and it's simply stupid.

 

[foszoe]

To be clear, what do you mean "bit right in the butt"? If you hope he gets prosecuted for failing to abide by universal background check legislation for safely storing a gun at someone else's home, I'll have to strongly disagree.

I may disagree with the guy politically, but that's a bad law and a bad application of it if he's arrested.

What would you consider a good application?

What if the next time its used to prosecute a ardent 2A supporter sucessfully, what would your response be?

I fully understand and appreciate the spirit vs the letter, but in the case of a bad law I guess I am leaning towards letter to quickly call attention to it and get it either jury nullified or permanently changed.

 

[HoughMade]

i hope they prosecute him and he gets fired for misusing the church funds to promote a political agenda.

Best result: he gets fired, he and the other guy get a misdemeanor, and the gun's life is spared

What makes you think the church isn't behind him 100%?

 

[oldpink]

What would you consider a good application?

What if the next time its used to prosecute a ardent 2A supporter sucessfully, what would your response be?

I fully understand and appreciate the spirit vs the letter, but in the case of a bad law I guess I am leaning towards letter to quickly call attention to it and get it either jury nullified or permanently changed.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
-Abraham Lincoln

 

[rhino]

What makes you think the church isn't behind him 100%?

That's a good point.

 

[HoughMade]

A quick trip around the church's website leads me to conclude that it is not conservative in its theology and that their method of biblical interpretation includes a lot of "I don't like what that says, so it can't mean that."

Home ? Christ Church Episcopal Parish

 

[foszoe]

A quick trip around the church's website leads me to conclude that it is not conservative in its theology and that their method of biblical interpretation includes a lot of "I don't like what that says, so it can't mean that."

Home ? Christ Church Episcopal Parish

Dont need the link....as soon as I saw Episcopal....

 

[HoughMade]

Dont need the link....as soon as I saw Episcopal....

...and there's that. The Pilgrims probably had a pretty sound point.

 

[oldpink]

Dont need the link....as soon as I saw Episcopal....

Exactly

 

[AmmoManAaron]

If a pro-gunner did the exact same thing, he would already have been prosecuted, so why let this guy off?
It's a bad law, but there is no virtue in exempting the anti-gun douchebags from it, while leaving everyone else subject to it.
That's not magnanimous; that's inequality before the law, it's fighting with both hands and feet tied behind your back, and it's simply stupid.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oldpink again."

 

[roscott]

BBI is looking at it from the standpoint of a police officer. It's a stupid law, and a stupid situation. Arresting him would be perpetuating the stupidity. Thankfully we still have officers that operate this way.

Those calling for for arrests are looking at it from a legal and political standpoint. If it had been an average gun owner caught doing this, the left would happily crucify him. As a result, it's easy to want to crucify him so they can learn what it feels like.

This is the SNAFU with victimless crimes. Ought the law to uphold them, or ignore them? It's a darned if you do, darned if you don't...

 

[pudly]

And this story comes to an end, not with a bang, but a whimper.

After an "investigation", the authorities decided not to prosecute. Apparently, they felt they couldn't prove that a transfer had happened, despite the fact that the pastor no longer had the gun.

Oregon Pastor Cleared of Illegal AR-15 Transfer - The Truth About Guns

 

[cobber]

And this story comes to an end, not with a bang, but a whimper.

After an "investigation", the authorities decided not to prosecute. Apparently, they felt they couldn't prove that a transfer had happened, despite the fact that the pastor no longer had the gun.

Oregon Pastor Cleared of Illegal AR-15 Transfer - The Truth About Guns

Laws for thee but not for me.

 

[OakRiver]

And this story comes to an end, not with a bang, but a whimper.

After an "investigation", the authorities decided not to prosecute. Apparently, they felt they couldn't prove that a transfer had happened, despite the fact that the pastor no longer had the gun.

Oregon Pastor Cleared of Illegal AR-15 Transfer - The Truth About Guns

So in Oregon despite a confession, a lack of rifle, and no proper paperwork for the transfer means no crime? There is an interesting precedent there.