Why "law abiding" matters to the larger RKBA community

utbagpiper · Jan 8, 2018

This report from FoxNews helps to highlight why it is so very important for gun owners to be law abiding and for gun groups to be strict in espousing adherence to existing gun laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...xpose-illegal-online-gun-sales-backfires.html

In addition to protecting individuals from prosecution, conviction, and loss of rights, the aggregate effect of gun owners obeying laws even when we think they are unconstitutional, is to avoid handing our opponents easy victories. It is a little scary to think that some 6 dozen cases, perhaps the conduct of fewer than 1,000 gun owners among 100,000,000 might be the deciding factor. It is heartening that in this case, it went in our favor.

Fair use excerpts:

A Democrat-backed study meant to expose illicit online gun sales instead seemed to show the opposite -- with hardly any sellers taking the bait when undercover investigators tried to set up dozens of illegal firearm transactions.

...

“Private sellers on Surface Web gun forums and in classified ads were unwilling to sell a firearm to our agents that self-identified as being prohibited from possessing a firearm,” the GAO reported, noting that in their “72 attempts ... 56 sellers refused to complete a transaction once we revealed that either the shipping address was across state lines or that we were prohibited by law from owning firearms.” In the other cases, the investigators' website was frozen or they encountered suspected scammers.

On the dark web, GAO agents successfully purchased two guns illegally, as the serial numbers on the weapons were “obliterated” and “shipped across state lines.” But in the attempt to purchase, the GAO agents “did not disclose any information indicating they were prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

Based on the findings of the study, the GAO said it is “not making recommendations in this report.”

...

solus · Jan 8, 2018

Happy new year...sorry to hear about the unexpected passing of President Monson.

the report referenced in Fox's report is from 2011...POINT, CLICK, FIRE:AN INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL ONLINE GUN SALES ~ DECEMBER 2011

here is the GAO's Nov 2017 Report to Congressional Requesters

INTERNET FIREARM SALESATF Enforcement Efforts and Outcomes of GAO Covert Testing

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf

for those who might be interested in the real skinny...

cheers

ipse

solus · Jan 8, 2018

hummm reference looks really familiar

Nightmare said:
The cited GAO report is dated November 2017

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf. 37 pages long.

just saying...

MamaLiberty · Jan 9, 2018

utbagpiper said:
This report from FoxNews helps to highlight why it is so very important for gun owners to be law abiding and for gun groups to be strict in espousing adherence to existing gun laws.

If there were no written "law" against murder, would you go around merrily murdering anyone who crossed your path? Probably not.

What makes any of the "existing gun laws" any better than anything the current crop of sociopaths in government come up with? How do any of those "laws" make sense, unless you are totally invested in the idea that some people should control other people, no matter who they are or what they actually do?

I'll wait...

OC for ME · Jan 9, 2018

What happened to the Fast and Furious investigation? what happened to those feds who sold arms to know violent criminals? Where is congressional outrage today regarding Fast and Furious?

...never mind...

utbagpiper · Jan 10, 2018

MamaLiberty said:
If there were no written "law" against murder, would you go around merrily murdering anyone who crossed your path? Probably not.

Complete non-sequitor.

MamaLiberty said:
What makes any of the "existing gun laws" any better than anything the current crop of sociopaths in government come up with? How do any of those "laws" make sense, unless you are totally invested in the idea that some people should control other people, no matter who they are or what they actually do?

I'll wait...

I'm afraid that with the usual anarchists' penchant for approaching every problem with their hammer of "all laws are evil", you've managed to entirely miss my point as you've tried to make this issue look like a nail.

I agree with your assessment of most all existing gun laws. For sake of debate I can take the position of agreeing 100% with you on 100% of gun laws. Got your attention?

My post said nothing about liking or supporting these laws. In fact, from context most readers could infer quite easily, I think, that a post such as mine is entirely unneeded for laws that are generally agreeable. Thus the reason your query about murder is irrelevant. My post isn't intended for laws that we support or think are just and necessary. My post is an appeal to why we are well served politically and socially to abide these gun laws we find offensive as we work to repeal them via the legislative process or have them tossed out by the courts.

We are well served politically and socially by obeying these laws because by doing so, we deny our opponents the easy ammunition they would otherwise use against us to pass additional laws infringing our rights. Not losing ground is an important part of any workable strategy to regain ground already lost.

At the end of the day, there are really only a couple of choices:

1-Work within the legal legislative and judicial processes to protect and reclaim our RKBA; or,

2-Violate the law and thus invite the government to bring to bear force to enforce the law.

The 2nd choice leaves one with two further choices:

1-Submit to the demands of the law; or,

2-Resist in some way, perhaps with an appeal to force.

The War Between the States demonstrates why no sensible person wants to appeal to force too quickly. A cursory study of world history demonstrates that for every successful American Revolution casting off distant tyrants, there are a lot of Russian, French, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions that make a bad situation even worse for most people. Violating laws just to peacefully spend long periods of time in prison seems less than ideal to most of us.

So I argue that violating laws passed by an entity powerful enough and determined to enforce them is a fools' errand no matter what consent you think you didn't give.

On the flip side, any honest, objective assessment of RKBA over the past 25 years demonstrates that from a low point of the federal scary looking gun ban being passed in 1994, we've made tremendous progress in improving our situation vis-a-vie RKBA. This hasn't been the result of quick or glorious efforts on a battlefield. But it also hasn't cost millions of lives, it hasn't risked an easy take over by tyrants even worse than what you may think we currently have. It has worked and seems to be continuing to work as we've moved from no concealed carry or no carry at all in many States to non-discriminatory permits to a growing number of permit-free States. The federal gun ban expired without being renewed. National Parks now follow the gun laws of the State in which they are located for outdoor areas. The SCOTUS has recognized--however limited and imperfectly--an individual right to keep usable guns at home and declared that right is operative against State and federal infringement. At this point, I'm leaving RKBA in a lot better shape for my kids than my parents left it for me.

My involvement with RKBA efforts, including the ever decreasing amount of time I spend on this forum, is geared entirely toward legal efforts to repeal or amend bad laws to make them less bad or even good, and to pass good laws such as liability protection for gun owners.

Why are you here? Is it to work legally within the system you constantly disparage? Or is it to encourage, however subtly and covertly, illegal conduct? And how does your post comport with your stated goal?

I suspect I'll have to wait quite a while for any answer from you.

Charles

utbagpiper · Jan 10, 2018

OC for ME said:
What happened to the Fast and Furious investigation? what happened to those feds who sold arms to know violent criminals? Where is congressional outrage today regarding Fast and Furious?

...never mind...

What is the point of this post?

Is to argue in favor of violating laws because the government violates laws? That is a violation of forum rules.

Or is to blow off steam completely off topic to the thread? That is a violate of forum rules and decent etiquette.

Got another option I missed?

solus · Jan 10, 2018

utbagpiper said:
What is the point of this post?

Is to argue in favor of violating laws because the government violates laws? That is a violation of forum rules.

Or is to blow off steam completely off topic to the thread? That is a violate of forum rules and decent etiquette.

Got another option I missed?

darn mate, here i thought this being a new year it would be a wiser characterization presented from you and you would practice what you preach and quit insulting other members and their posted opinions...yet...

you know history repeats itself as you experienced a similar melt down resulting in exile last year at almost this same time frame.

guess the french adage plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose is alive as shown by your current behaviour and attitude.

grabbin a cheerwine...

color of law · Jan 10, 2018

utbagpiper, I guess Cliven Bundy should have sought your advice.

utbagpiper · Jan 10, 2018

color of law said:
utbagpiper, I guess Cliven Bundy should have sought your advice.

How do you know he didn't? He's not been convicted of any crimes. I suspect he hasn't actually committed any crimes.

Do you assert to the contrary?

So far as I know he's never been accused of violating any gun laws regarding sales to prohibited persons or across State lines. I believe he was accused of threatening federal agents, but all those charges have been dismissed with prejudice. And really, unless you are one of those who showed up to support him in some way, your post is a bit disingenuous and seems intended primarily to be argumentative, rather than to actually provide any rational rebuttal as to why my assertions or the long standing rules of this forum about abiding existing gun laws are not entirely prudent.

Bundy, his family, and their supporters have paid a horrible price. Finicum is dead. Several others are serving long sentences in federal prison and have forever lost their RKBA. Time will tell whether the Bundy ranch actually survives or goes bust after the men being in jail for 2 years.

Given recent revelations about the grossly unjustified use of force against the Bundys by the Bureau of Land Management when their own analysis said the Bundys were peaceful, Cliven and his family may well have had no reasonable choice but to take up arms in moral, justified, lawful self defense. That situation is not even in the same universe as laws prohibiting gun sales across State lines or to prohibited persons.

If you like to discuss or even debate the topic of my OP / this thread, I'd be pleased to do so. If the moderators were to allow, I'd even go so far as to defend forum rules about only advocating lawful conduct if you wanted to attack the forum rules you've voluntarily agreed to abide by participating here. But the issue of how to best respond when your life is credibly threatened by what may well be described as rogue government agents seems off topic for this thread.

utbagpiper · Jan 10, 2018

I see solus gets to insult with impunity by calling me "mate" but returning the favor to address him as "not savant" gets post deleted.

Mods are up to the same old favoritism.

This post probably gets me banned for "resisting moderation."

No great loss these days.

utbagpiper · Jan 10, 2018

solus said:
darn mate, here i thought this being a new year it would be a wiser characterization presented from you and you would practice what you preach and quit insulting other members and their posted opinions...yet...

you know history repeats itself as you experienced a similar melt down resulting in exile last year at almost this same time frame.

.

Please explain to me how I insulted anyone.

I was clear in my post to OC for Me what I found inappropriate about his post. I did so without calling him names, which is more than you can say when you address me in ways you know I find offensive.

Please do not address me as "mate". I am not your "mate" in any sense of the word.

solus · Jan 11, 2018

utbagpiper said:
Complete non-sequitor. (sic)

Why are you here? Is it to work legally within the system you constantly disparage? Or is it to encourage, however subtly and covertly, illegal conduct? And how does your post comport with your stated goal?

I suspect I'll have to wait quite a while for any answer from you. Charles

utbagpiper said:
What is the point of this post?

Is to argue in favor of violating laws because the government violates laws? That is a violation of forum rules.

Or is to blow off steam completely off topic to the thread? That is a violate of forum rules and decent etiquette.

Got another option I missed?

utbagpiper said:
I see solus gets to insult with impunity by calling me "mate" but returning the favor to address him as "not savant" gets post deleted.

Mods are up to the same old favoritism.

This post probably gets me banned for "resisting moderation."

No great loss these days.

utbagpiper said:
Please explain to me how I insulted anyone.

perhaps Charles, utbagpiper, piper, etc.,

while from your perspective, your ego does not see where anybody was 'insulted,' per se., but please review the definition of the word from M/W's perspective based on the community/culture standard in which you live:

quote: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly unquote https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insult

So, your comment to Mama stating her commentary was 'completely non sequitur' w/o providing any type of rationale or counter argument is just insolence on your part.

again, your comment to CC for ME is rude and disrespectful behaviour, and affront towards that member since you didn't provide any rationale why you didn't understand the poster's commentary.

also, your comment about moderation shows your extreme contempt towards the site's moderation and as such damagingly undermines the moderator(s) role on this forum.

further, your attempt at an insulting comment 'non savant' regarding my having significant mental disabilities or other personality trait deficiency is actually quite humorous...'non' ~ "not of the kind or class described" used in conjunction w/the word savant actually means "not of the kind or class described" "significant mental disabilities."

FYI, insults do not have to blatantly discuss someone's heritage ~ ad nauseam, or be elementary grade school playground taunts, or aimed at an individuals, mental, physical, reading capabilities, etc., to be considered insults.

so charles, utbagpiper, piper, your query post above has been acknowledged, instead of summarily dismissed, and objective evidence provided to show you the rationale for my post to call you out.

finally, that you believe a singular, colloquialism word for friend, of camaraderie, greeting, can cause you to lose all self control should cause you real significant concern.

ipse

OC Freedom · Jan 11, 2018

utbagpiper said:
I see solus gets to insult with impunity by calling me "mate" but returning the favor to address him as "not savant" gets post deleted.

Mods are up to the same old favoritism.

This post probably gets me banned for "resisting moderation."

No great loss these days.

Anyone with their eyes half open can see what you say is spot on. All are equal here, but some are more equal than others.

color of law · Jan 11, 2018

utbagpiper said:
"Originally Posted by color of law"
utbagpiper, I guess Cliven Bundy should have sought your advice.

Click to expand...

How do you know he didn't? He's not been convicted of any crimes. I suspect he hasn't actually committed any crimes.

Do you assert to the contrary?

So far as I know he's never been accused of violating any gun laws regarding sales to prohibited persons or across State lines. I believe he was accused of threatening federal agents, but all those charges have been dismissed with prejudice. And really, unless you are one of those who showed up to support him in some way, your post is a bit disingenuous and seems intended primarily to be argumentative, rather than to actually provide any rational rebuttal as to why my assertions or the long standing rules of this forum about abiding existing gun laws are not entirely prudent.

Bundy, his family, and their supporters have paid a horrible price. Finicum is dead. Several others are serving long sentences in federal prison and have forever lost their RKBA. Time will tell whether the Bundy ranch actually survives or goes bust after the men being in jail for 2 years.

Given recent revelations about the grossly unjustified use of force against the Bundys by the Bureau of Land Management when their own analysis said the Bundys were peaceful, Cliven and his family may well have had no reasonable choice but to take up arms in moral, justified, lawful self defense. That situation is not even in the same universe as laws prohibiting gun sales across State lines or to prohibited persons.

If you like to discuss or even debate the topic of my OP / this thread, I'd be pleased to do so. If the moderators were to allow, I'd even go so far as to defend forum rules about only advocating lawful conduct if you wanted to attack the forum rules you've voluntarily agreed to abide by participating here. But the issue of how to best respond when your life is credibly threatened by what may well be described as rogue government agents seems off topic for this thread.

Your are a funny guy. Did you ever think about going on the road?

This report from FoxNews helps to highlight why it is so very important for gun owners to be law abiding and for gun groups to be strict in espousing adherence to existing gun laws.

Legal gun laws or illegal gun laws? Or, complying with the intentional misapplication of a law or its regulation. I cut the government no slack, none. Why is not your stance that it is so very important for government to be law abiding and to be strict in espousing adherence to existing gun laws, or all lawful laws?

I'm sure you have never been jailed and prosecuted for "not violating" a law. If you have I may give you some of my time. If you have not talked the talk AND walked the walk then your advise or opinion carries little weight with me.

Have a nice day....

OC for ME · Jan 11, 2018

utbagpiper said:
This report from FoxNews helps to highlight why it is so very important for gun owners to be law abiding and for gun groups to be strict in espousing adherence to existing gun laws.

... the aggregate effect of gun owners obeying laws even when we think they are unconstitutional, is to avoid handing our opponents easy victories. It is a little scary to think that some 6 dozen cases, perhaps the conduct of fewer than 1,000 gun owners among 100,000,000 might be the deciding factor. It is heartening that in this case, it went in our favor. ...

What went in our favor?
The NRA acknowledging the obvious?

The GAO quantifying the obvious? How much did this study cost us?
The ATF investigating the obvious? The ATF should be restructured (no longer a LE agency) into a agency similar to the NTSB.
Liberal congressmen/congresswomen calling for a study/investigation and hoping to not discover the obvious?

Cummings, Warren and Schatz did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the GAO’s findings.

Unfortunate that congress continues to appropriate our tax dollars to reaffirm the obvious. This is the real point/story in the FoxNews report you linked to.

MamaLiberty's question and her premise do not advocate for the violation of existing laws.

If there were no written "law" against murder, would you go around merrily murdering anyone who crossed your path? Probably not. ...

You ignored her premise and her question.

OC for ME said:
What happened to the Fast and Furious investigation? what happened to those feds who sold arms to know violent criminals? Where is congressional outrage today regarding Fast and Furious?

...never mind...

Congress had no interest in illegal gun sales when it was the feds (ATF) doing the illegal gun sales...and not just across state lines.

The ATF's lawlessness and culpability is well documented. I am not a "wiki-whatever" seeking individual, but in this particular instance their brevity dis useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

utbagpiper said:
What is the point of this post?

Is to argue in favor of violating laws because the government violates laws? That is a violation of forum rules.

Or is to blow off steam completely off topic to the thread? That is a violate of forum rules and decent etiquette.

Got another option I missed?

Calling for congress to hold those responsible in the ATF for the "gunwalking" that resulted in at least one federal LEO being murdered by a firearm that the ATF transferred to known violent criminals. Being realistic enough to realize that the feds are loath to hold their own accountable. Working within the system (our vote for many of us) has not "drained the swamp" that is the ranks of the various federal LE agencies and GAO.

You did accuse me of violating forum rules. Advocating for the violation of the laws and/or attempting to take your thread off topic, or both.

Provide further options? And the opportunity to miss/ignore/take out of context (intentionally?) any statement I post...no thanks.

A reasonable and rational discussion with you on your opening post is pointless given your follow on posts.

OC for ME · Jan 11, 2018

color of law said:
... If you have not talked the talk AND walked the walk then your advise or opinion carries little weight with me.

Have a nice day....

This may eliminate a great many contributors to your posts in the future.

JTHunter2 · Jan 11, 2018

MamaLiberty said:
If there were no written "law" against murder, would you go around merrily murdering anyone who crossed your path?

I beg your pardon?? Are you of some version of Christian faith? What about the 10 Commandments, esp. the First?? "No written law"??
Good grief!!

utbagpiper · Jan 11, 2018

color of law said:
Your are a funny guy. Did you ever think about going on the road?

What do you consider humorous in my post?

Is your comment intended as a persona insult, in violation of forum rules?

color of law said:
Legal gun laws or illegal gun laws? Or, complying with the intentional misapplication of a law or its regulation.

All laws duly passed are presumed legal until a court rules otherwise. Laws prohibiting gun sales to convicted felons and (private party) across State lines may offend our sense of the RKBA, but have been upheld as constitutional. Violation is non-violent, and some may justify "civil disobedience." My post was one example of the benefits of abiding these laws.

color of law said:
I cut the government no slack, none. Why is not your stance that it is so very important for government to be law abiding and to be strict in espousing adherence to existing gun laws, or all lawful laws?

Why do you presume to know my stance on the matter? I haven't discussed it. Nor is it the topic of the OP nor of this thread.

There are things I can control and things I can't. If I could control government conduct, there would be little need for RKBA activism because I'd just repeal all the unconstitutional gun laws. I can't control government conduct except perhaps via the voting booth or the jury box.

This thread is about what each of us can do ourselves. It points out the benefits to the larger community when individual gun owners obey the law and use lawful means to effect needed changes.

Left-wing causes can far more safely engage in civil disobedience than can gun owners. That isn't fair. Welcome to life. Deal with reality, or complain about things beyond your control.

color of law said:
I'm sure you have never been jailed and prosecuted for "not violating" a law. If you have I may give you some of my time. If you have not talked the talk AND walked the walk then your advise or opinion carries little weight with me.

Well then by all means, please take this chance to stop wasting your time and mine. If you've been wrongly prosecuted and fought the good fight, you have my thanks. But that doesn't give you any more right to be insulting, rude, or provocative than those of us who have done our bit without such injustices coming to us.

utbagpiper · Jan 11, 2018

OC for ME said:
What went in our favor?

Our opponents were denied any ammunition to justify additional infringements of our RKBA. They lost a political opportunity to advance universal registration / universal background checks.

We gained solid, independent, non-partisan data that the vast majority of gun owners obey existing laws regarding private gun sales.

OC for ME said:
Liberal congressmen/congresswomen calling for a study/investigation and hoping to not discover the obvious?Unfortunate that congress continues to appropriate our tax dollars to reaffirm the obvious. This is the real point/story in the FoxNews report you linked to.

That is one take. But that isn't what you or others have thus far posted, is it?

OC for ME said:
MamaLiberty's question and her premise do not advocate for the violation of existing laws.You ignored her premise and her question.

Perhaps we should leave it to her to tell us what her premise and advocacy are.

OC for ME said:
Congress had no interest in illegal gun sales when it was the feds (ATF) doing the illegal gun sales...and not just across state lines.

You are correct. But that is irrelevant to the point at hand. We can't directly control whether the feds obey the law. We get to decide whether we are going to obey the law and the news article highlights the benefits when we do, and what our opponents had hoped to gain if they could show we didn't.

OC for ME said:
You did accuse me of violating forum rules. Advocating for the violation of the laws and/or attempting to take your thread off topic, or both.

I asked if either was your intent. Was it?

If not, what was the intent of your post?

OC for ME said:
A reasonable and rational discussion with you on your opening post is pointless given your follow on posts.

I'm sorry you feel incapable of articulating your on-topic points in a way this is clear to others.

Why "law abiding" matters to the larger RKBA community

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned