On 3/11/04 11:59 PM, "Clayton E. Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is entirely possible that some of these buyers were legitimate gun
> collectors, but it is foolish to pretend that most of these guns aren't
>
> resold immediately. In California, it was illegal that year to transfer a
> handgun to someone else (except for immediate family members) without
>
> going through a licensed dealer, background check, and waiting period. The
> question that we should ask about these 245 multiple handgun
>
> buyers is, "Why pass another law? Why not just show up at the door of these
> people that are buying all these handguns, and ask them where
>
> the guns are? If they don't have the guns, and they can't provide evidence of
> a legal sale, it should be easy to get a conviction for selling
>
> the guns illegally."
On what grounds would the purchaser be obliged to produce evidence that he
either still has the guns or sold them? Suppose he just slams the door in
the face of the questioner. Or says he still has them but refuses to prove
it. Or says he tried them all once, didn't like any of them, so he gave them
away to his friends.
How do you get a conviction out of that?
Even if you get probable cause to search his house, and the guns aren't
there, if the guy doesn't confess, you don't know if he keeps them
elsewhere, gave them away, sold them legally, sold them illegally, melted
them down, etc.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If I care to listen to every criticism, let alone act on them, then this
shop may as well be closed for all other businesses. I have learned to do my
best, and if the end result is good then I do not care for any criticism,
but if the end result is not good, then even the praise of ten angels would
not make the difference."
-- Abraham Lincoln
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
