NRA Board member loses his Gun Store

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are lots fo things not covered in the contitution. Show me were it says criminals can be locked up? Show me where is says I cant dive 100 MPH through a scool zone. Show me where it says I can't move next door to you and through loud parties any rap music through load speakers directly pointed at your house 24/7.

The Contstitution does not tell me what I can or can not do, nor does it tell the fed what it can do, only what it can't within the restrictions. Guess what, fed gov can legally pass laws that restrict what we do so long as those laws do not violate the constitution. Having a system in place that keeps guns away from those who have proven to not play nice is a good thing.

As I said, it needs refinement, and I encourage working on that, but somthing needs to be there. In fact, background checks is one of the very few gun controll mesures I support.

I have to ask again, do you really want the guy who would kill a family just because, who had a history of violent behavor to get a gun?
 
There are lots fo things not covered in the contitution. Show me were it says criminals can be locked up? Show me where is says I cant dive 100 MPH through a scool zone. Show me where it says I can't move next door to you and through loud parties any rap music through load speakers directly pointed at your house 24/7.
Click to expand...
Those are all police matters. Only States may address police matters. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that the Federal Government cannot do those things, taken in conjunction with the lack of delegated authority to do them.
The Contstitution does not tell me what I can or can not do, nor does it tell the fed what it can do, only what it can't within the restrictions.
Click to expand...
Wrong! The US Constitution DOES tell the Federal Government what it CAN do. That's what it is, i.e., a list of delegated powers. Any powers not delegated, belong to the States and the people, and are specifically DENIED to the Federal Government. Where did you learn civics? Mcschool?
Guess what, fed gov can legally pass laws that restrict what we do so long as those laws do not violate the constitution.
Click to expand...
More ignorant words have never been spoken. Open a book once in a while. They don't hurt.
Having a system in place that keeps guns away from those who have proven to not play nice is a good thing.
Click to expand...
That's what police powers are for. Police powers are the exclusive domain of the States.
As I said, it needs refinement, and I encourage working on that, but somthing needs to be there. In fact, background checks is one of the very few gun controll mesures I support.

I have to ask again, do you really want the guy who would kill a family just because, who had a history of violent behavor to get a gun?
Click to expand...
If he has done nothing sufficiently bad to cause him to be executed or imprisoned under the laws of a State, he has a right to have a gun.
 
Also to add, I agree that jumping through hopes is not good, but how is doing a background check, that should take no more than 5 minutes an infringement?

Infringe in this context meaning to deny.
 
Infringe in this context meaning to deny.
Click to expand...
Infringe does not mean to deny.

Infringe: "Meaning of encroach first recorded c.1760."

- Online Etymology Dictionary

Encroach: "To enter gradually or stealthily upon another's property or rights."

- Merrium - Webster

Enter: "To penetrate, pierce."

- American Heritage Dictionary

Pierce: "To enter into."

- Merrium Webster
 
Thank you for the attacks on my education and ability to read. You may now have this thread to your self.

Good day
Click to expand...
I never attacked your ability to read. I suggested the infrequency of your making use of good books. Further, I criticized your school for failing you in the area of civics, not your native intelligence. For all I know, you are an expert at things of which I haven't the foggiest notion, but it is clear that you do not understand the basic workings of your own government, and that's a damned shame.
 
My take on the ATF is simple. They do nothing that's good enough to outweigh the awful things they do to our freedom.

In every society, there are necessary evils and their are just evils. ATF is one of the latter.

999
 
too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.
Click to expand...
So what? Why is it anyone's business?

Regulating firarms transactions in that asking the dealer to keep a log and buyers to fill out 4473's and having the number of 4473's to match the number of guns sold per his books is not infringment.
Click to expand...
You couldn't be more wrong.

We wouldn't want to have manufacturers producing unsafe products, and we don't want dealers putting them into the hands of unsafe people.
Click to expand...
Who gets to decide who's unsafe?
 
Admittedly, the system is not perfect and needs to be changed. I would prefer a faster, more accurate background check, but we do need a check. Make no mistakes, some folks just should not have access to guns.
Click to expand...

While it is admittedly certain that some people do bad things with guns, and knives, and bats, and sticks, I am certainly under no delusions that denying the non-law-abiding the opportunity to fill out a 4473 form so that the government may judge his gun purchase somehow magically deprives the non-law-abiding of the ability to obtain guns.

Serial killers buy baseball bats and carving knives at the store like soda, one presumes - and kill people with them too. But we don't claim to have a "baseball bat crisis" in America and ask people to fill out their federal form 4473-BB so that we can do an instant background check before they buy their bat.

Shouldn't we? Wouldn't we all be safer? Shouldn't we be doing it for the children???

Would you rather have guns sold like soda?
Click to expand...

No, I'd rather have them sold, as they did in 1967, through the mail and like soda. And I'd like a side-order of silencers with that.

Why, are you attempting to persuade me that the streets were running red with blood in 1965, because of the rampant killings due to felons and other undesirables having access to weapons through the mail?? Really, was 1965 more dangerous that 2005? Even with all that unrestricted access to guns???

Gun access was even less restrictive in 1933, but strangely most people don't attempt to reason that the lack of gun-tax statutes caused the violence observed during Prohibition. And if the Prohibition of alcohol caused the violence during Prohibition, why did we need gun-control tax statutes passed after Prohibition was repealed, thereby repealing the reason for the violence?

So what you're really saying is that if 1/10 of 1% of the population is sociopathic, then it is the patriotic duty of the other 99.99% of the populace to accept massive restrictions of their rights to live in liberty and freedom - because the only freedom that we who harm no one are to be allowed is whatever the worst citizens of society act to deserve.

It is really quite sad. Most people sit down and watch, say, Minority Report and understand why it is immoral to attempt to police "Pre-Crime" [crime before it exists.]

And then they say, in the next breath, something like, "I would prefer a faster, more accurate background check, but we do need a check to stop those people from legally buying guns who we think will commit crimes with them in the future. Make no mistakes, we can tell the future, and we need to stop some folks from legally purchasing guns before they have a chance to commit a crime - even if we have to restrict the rights of 9999 law-abiding other people to do it."

'S funny, really. Oliver Wendal Holmes said that it "would be better to let 10 guilty men go free, then to punish one innocent man." Now we think it is better to restict the rights of 9999 innocent men in order to possibly prevent one from commiting a crime.

Must be the new freedom.

Dex
firedevil_smiley.gif
 
Yup, the whole point of having an FFL is the guy is responsible for keeping absolutely accurate logs in his bound book. If he's not up to that he shouldn't haven an FFL. That's how the law works, and I think this is one of the few reasonable gun laws we have.
 
hawkeye, dex, & molon labe seem to be winning this debate

old dog
My real question: how do the laws of New York apply to this thread about federal regulations broken by a Maryland gun-dealer?
Click to expand...

same excrement different longitude and lattitude...

I am willing to bet that this gun dealer, an NRA board member, is an honest man and that this is "investigation" is payback for some percieved slight against an government lackey.
 
Last edited:
Quote:

'S funny, really. Oliver Wendal Holmes said that it "would be better to let 10 guilty men go free, then to punish one innocent man." Now we think it is better to restict the rights of 9999 innocent men in order to possibly prevent one from commiting a crime.

Must be the new freedom.

Unquote.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Atlas Shrugged" would be a good start for some readers on this thread. We are already living in Rand's nightmare, where good is evil and evil is good.

Some on this thread are astute at debating fine points of regulatory law but haven't a clue about natural rights that existed prior to 1933 and 1968. Rand would call you "looters."
 
The latest stats from post-katrina where something like 5000 local residents applied for new and replacement weapons with only two denials (and something tells me both were mistakes).

The more I hear about the batf and all the ways gun control laws can backfire, the more I think its an area the law really should not have infringed on.
It seems to have caused more harm than it ever did good.
 
You live in a society. A society has rules. Obey them or move.
Click to expand...
Yea, like those rogue militiamen who fired on the redcoats standing across Concord Bridge. Didn't they know what they were doing was illegal? Damn lawbreakers, each and every one of them. :fire: As stated in your quote, if they didn't know how to obey by the rules, they should have moved.

Rosa Parks is another one who grates my nerves. We have laws for a reason, damnit! :mad: And they should be followed without question until they're changed. They should have locked her up for a couple years, at least.
 
WAY too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.
Click to expand...
Good.

It gives me a warm feeling inside to know people are bypassing our 4473 system. Thomas Jefferson smiles from heaven each time a person acquires a gun this way.
 
"too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.

So what? Why is it anyone's business?"

Are you serious? Maybe in a perfect world it wouldn't be anyone's business, but the reality of it is he's in trouble because he wouldn't clean up his act after repeated warnings.

John
 
I really don't care to enter the shyteflinging fest about whether the BATF is the first step to Nazi-ism (it probably is and I do wish it would just go away) or whether regulation constitutes infringement (IANAL, but my gut instinct is that right or wrong you'll find a good body of caselaw where the highest courts in the land have decided it isn't). I did get an ATF agent to agree the other day that their efforts to prevent criminals from acquiring guns are largely futile, which IMHO negates the ATF's justification for existing, be it tax agency, police agency, or whatever.

What I will do is weigh in as a one time customer of Valley Gun. Firstly, Sandy Abrams himself hasn't been in business since 1954, the business has. He either inherited or bought it along the way somewhere. Had I to guess I'd figure Sandy is in his mid-50s, so unless he started the business from the womb, let's clarify that. The 400 missing guns wouldn't date back to 1954.

Secondly, I profoundly disagree with Sandy on some basic issues; he, the NRA brass in Maryland (read: Jennifer Palmer), Purtilo, and others have gone out of their way to fight CCW (they're every bit as dangerous to it as the anti groups) because of an unfounded and irrational fear that the other side will counter and make the laws worse (they couldn't get much worse, believe me). Their attitude of "sit and wait for a more friendly legislature" is a recipe for inaction, and given how much progress we've made this year with pro-gun bills in the State House, I don't think they could be more wrong and we activists in MD have proven that. So let's get one thing straight: I'm no fan of Sandy Abrams and I've made it clear that I've spent my last dollar in his store a long time before the BATF shut him down.

That said: I would be highly surprised to find that a law and order guy like him was funneling guns to criminals out the back door or the shop. When my Glock needed a new frame under recall, I had been living for a couple months in Virginia; however, I had Glock ship the new part to MD (and Sandy's store) knowing I'd be home to Baltimore when it arrived. When the seven day wait for my new frame was up, I came to pick up the frame and explained to Sandy why the frame had to be shipped to his store and not the one in VA. He proceeded to harangue me for not getting a VA drivers license (which, technically I was supposed to do, but why bother) for the two months I was there and question my illegal activities. Over a frame for a gun I already owned.

Regardless of how little I care for the man's bedside manner, his obtuse politics, and his generally unfriendly attitude, I'd be quite shocked if he was intentionally sending guns to the black market and flouting a bigtime law. My guess is this is a paperwork debacle that the ATF is using to shut down someone they don't like.
 
or whether regulation constitutes infringement (IANAL, but my gut instinct is that right or wrong you'll find a good body of caselaw where the highest courts in the land have decided it isn't).
Click to expand...
I don't give a rat's a$$ what any court (including the SCOTUS) thinks of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. If they recognize it - fine. If they don't, I still retain this right.

If a court thinks the government is allowed to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms in any way, the court is wrong, and it is my solemn duty to ignore any and all laws that restrict this right.
 
I agree that the BATF is in the wrong, but as a gun rights activist and someone who's been regularly rubbing elbows with politicians, the "give me liberty or give me death" thing isn't effective because there simply aren't enough of us who feel that way. Gun owners need to be more active and vocal, but we need to strengthen our numbers greatly before that sort of civil disobedience is going to work. I think you're right, but I also recognize that we aren't going to eat that elephant in one bite and so I work within the system as a law abiding citizen.

Look at it this way: even though we don't have the votes to win concealed carry here, we fight for it anyway because we're wearing down the opposition and we'll get closer to it every year. It's a slow painstaking process, but I think it's the way forward.
 
I couldn't have said it better Helmetcase.

I personally wouldn't buy from Sandy because of the reasons already listed, and his prices were outrageous.

But this is a man who for years has been testifying in Annapolis on gun bills, and is (or recently was) President of the Md Licenced Firearms Dealers Association.

It would not be paranoid to think that he's made some strong enemies over the years, and the timing of this whole thing just happens to coincide with this year's General Assembly. I think this will probably keep him too busy to testify on the multiple days that gun bills are heard in Annapolis.

I don't like the man, and I often disagree with him, but any time a prominent gun rights activist gets taken down for any reason it's a huge loss to all of us.
 
Molon Labe -- # 96
If a court thinks the government is allowed to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms in any way, the court is wrong, and it is my solemn duty to ignore any and all laws that restrict this right.
Click to expand...

So what's your plan exactly to ignore these laws restricting FFL's? Are you going to get your own FFL, open your own gun shop and refuse to fill out the proper forms?

I'll admit that if enough of us did that, we'd over burden the BATFE and they wouldn't be able to keep up. Until they hired more people and became even bigger, more powerful, and more bureaucratic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
update,Gun shop lost license, but can sell inventory
Replies
23
Views
2K
gunsmith
G
L
  • Locked
Sanford Abrams making Headlines once again
Replies
0
Views
579
Lambo
L
H
  • Locked
MD: Records show only half of state's gun dealers checked in three years
Replies
4
Views
532
Spot77
S
P
  • Locked
ATF continues to shut down California gun stores
Replies
1
Views
403
Car Knocker
C
L
  • Locked
Gun dealer tied to fatal shooting (MD)
Replies
14
Views
1K
chipperi
C
Back
Top