Policy arguments. 1. Society should want buyers to choose to make their purchases through dealers and undergo a background check. Thus there should be no penalty for the person who does so and FAILS the check. They didn't get a gun that day. 2. The person to be punished severely is the person who makes a knowingly false statement of a material fact and therefore PASSES a background check they should have failed. That person DOES get a guy that day by trick. That should be stopped.
NOTE: The person with a 45 year-old bar fight conviction, charged as a felony in 1963 Texas, that resulted in a week in the County Jail, fine, and probation, in not violation. The recently released gang banger (free after 5 years on an Assault 1 conviction) who uses his twin brother's ID, is in violation. Just result in both cases. On Monday, April 24, 2017, Don Kilmer <[email protected]> wrote: > California has a procedure whereby any person can conduct a background > check on themselves. > > > > See: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pfecfaqs > > > > And: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/pfecapp.pdf > > > > First. What would the crime be: Perjury? The falsehood must be knowing, > willful and material. Many people don’t know at the time they fill out a > gun purchase form that their conviction is still valid or hasn’t been > expunged, etc., etc., etc., Attempted Felon-in-Possession? > > > > Second. The state of WA will merely clog its criminal court dockets with > crimes that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. > > > > Finally, it seems to me that WA is trying to implement a version of CA’s > APPS system without spending the time, money and training on a real system. > > > > See: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/ > armed-prohib-person-system.pdf > > > > Yeah. It looks like WA is following in CA’s footsteps in slowly becoming > a police state. > > > > Donald E. J. Kilmer, Jr. > > Attorney at Law (SBN: 179986) > > Law Offices of Donald Kilmer, A.P.C. > > 1645 Willow Street, Suite 150 > > San Jose, California 95125 > > Email: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > Web: www.DKLawOffice.com <http://www.dklawoffice.com/> > > Voice: (408) 264-8489 > > > > *This electronic message may be protected by the attorney-client > privilege. All rights are reserved. Counsel should assume that all > correspondence is blind copied to my clients. * > > > > *From:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On > Behalf Of *[email protected] > *Sent:* Monday, April 24, 2017 7:58 AM > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Mandatory reporting of background check failures > > > > Washington State is toying with the idea of compelling FFLs to report when > a purchaser fails a background check. > > > > http://www.king5.com/news/politics/senate-surprises- > with-vote-on-firearms-bill/433001920 > > > > The notion is that the purchaser, if they knew they were prohibited, lied > on the sundry forms and thus have committed a crime. > > > > What are the con law aspect to this? Can FFLs be compelled to do work for > the state? Is there a privacy issued involved (disclosing personal info > about the buyer)? Does reporting create endangerments for the FFL or anyone > else? > > > > > > Guy Smith > > [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > www.linkedin.com/in/gunfacts/ > > > > > -- ******************************************************************************************************************** Professor Joseph Olson, J.D.(*Honors,* Duke), Ll.M (Florida) Office 651-695-7674| Hamline University School of Law (Emeritus) Fax: 651-290-6426 Mitchell-Hamline School of Law (Emeritus & Adjunct) *** NEW *** *Cell 612-499-6822* [email protected] <[email protected]> [primary] *or* [email protected] [secondary]
_______________________________________________ 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 Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
