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

[pudly]

Really doesn't matter. Make up any reason you want. The end result is the same. He did it and ended up screwing up his life by tripping over the law.

 

[stephen87]

If he were truly serious, he would have donated the money to the girls and/or bought MULTIPLE ARs off of the shelf to destroy. This is all political showboating to show that "anyone can get a gun."

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I think most of the cheerleading for prosecution is because he's the "opposition" and if he'd been Joe Bob the gunowner who gave the gun to a neighbor while he went on vacation the tone of this thread would be totally different.

Yup, pretty much. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

 

[pudly]

Yup, pretty much. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

That's doesn't make you a bad person at all. You believe that this law is wrong for all. Those who own guns were the ones targeted by this law. However, it is just if those who support bad laws end up paying the price in addition to those who oppose it. Aka: no David Gregory exceptions.

 

[SwikLS]

Does anyone really think he'd be prosecuted for an attempt to promote gun control in a pro-gun-control state? Not likely.

 

[HoughMade]

It's interesting, the "transfer" here is not a broad as the proposed federal legislation I referred to above was, but it's pretty broad and there appears to be no "temporary transfer" exception that applies here, at least not obviously:

(a) “Transfer” means the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including,but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm. “Transfer” does not include the temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:
(A) At a shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed for the purpose of targetshooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class or a similar lawful activity;
(B) For the purpose of hunting, trapping or target shooting, during the time in which the transferee is engaged in activities related to hunting, trapping or target shooting;
(C) Under circumstances in which the transferee and the firearm are in the presence of the transferor;
(D) To a transferee who is in the business of repairing firearms, for the time during which the firearm is being repaired;
(E) To a transferee who is in the business of making or repairing custom accessories for firearms, for the time during which the accessories are being made or repaired; or
(F) For the purpose of preventing imminent death or serious physical injury, and the provision lasts only as long as is necessary to prevent the death or serious physical injury;

 

[Cameramonkey]

It's interesting, the "transfer" here is not a broad as the proposed federal legislation I referred to above was, but it's pretty broad and there appears to be no "temporary transfer" exception that applies here, at least not obviously:

And this nutjob probably thinks line F applies. After all, these things are dangerous DAAAAAAANGEROUS I SAY!!!!!

 

[Thegeek]

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.

A bad law, sure..... supported and perpetuated by these kinds of people. A supporter of such legislation should be prosecuted to the full extent for violating it.

 

[rhino]

When the first gun control laws were passed in the US, I doubt the people who made them believed that those laws would ever apply to them, just "those people."

This is kind of the same thing. I'll bet that had this minister known of this law, he supported it 100%. Now we have the inevitable unintended consequences. It's okay to enjoy the irony and it's okay to approve of a prosecution both for that reason as well as to show everyone that the legislators and governor made a huge mistake.

 

[KG1]

I think most of the cheerleading for prosecution is because he's the "opposition" and if he'd been Joe Bob the gunowner who gave the gun to a neighbor while he went on vacation the tone of this thread would be totally different.

You're darn right because most would have sympathy and support for "Joe Bob gunowner" who got caught up in this bull**** legislation that was most likely supported by the likes of the good pastor.

 

[MCgrease08]

And this nutjob probably thinks line F applies. After all, these things are dangerous DAAAAAAANGEROUS I SAY!!!!!

He very well make that argument. Unfortunately that section refers to imminent death or severe bodily injury.

I'm no lawyer, but fairly certain the definition of imminent is well established.

 

[JettaKnight]

Here is my question. So if he wanted to destroy it, why didnt he do so? Why "transfer" it to somebody else? (their verbiage, not mine) Why not lock it up in his house using the provided trigger lock? (they all come with locks, right?)

If *I* were buying something with the express intent to destroy, I'd do it. I wouldnt store it until later. What if the evil Item I just bought got stolen while sitting around waiting to be destroyed? (even in a safe)

If he were truly serious, he would have had a parishioner with a torch or saw lined up to do the deed.

He can't have that evil thing in his house! We all know that AR-15's are bad and can start killing without notice or provocation.

 

[JettaKnight]

I can only assume that the church approved this use of the money, or ratified it.

According the article, it was discretionary funds, so no.

This. I'd be upset that church money was used on this.

And that's why you're not Episcopalian.

 

[Hornett]

Originally Posted by Cameramonkey

Here is my question. So if he wanted to destroy it, why didnt he do so? Why "transfer" it to somebody else? (their verbiage, not mine) Why not lock it up in his house using the provided trigger lock? (they all come with locks, right?)

If *I* were buying something with the express intent to destroy, I'd do it. I wouldnt store it until later. What if the evil Item I just bought got stolen while sitting around waiting to be destroyed? (even in a safe)

If he were truly serious, he would have had a parishioner with a torch or saw lined up to do the deed.

He can't have that evil thing in his house! We all know that AR-15's are bad and can start killing without notice or provocation.

I think he took it to a gun owner that could appropriately "contain and restrain" it from killing everyone in his house, until it could be destroyed with great fanfare at some pre-planned gala.

 

[HoughMade]

According the article, it was discretionary funds....

Which means:

1) Apparently he could do whatever he wanted with the money...which is a prior approval, and

2) They didn't fire him when this came out, or by any account raise a stink, so that's ratification.

 

[Scout]

More importantly, he should be fired for using $3,000 of Church discretionary funds to buy the tickets. That is poor management and deserving of punishment.

BTW, thanks indiucky, Portlandia is a guilty pleasure.

Wouldn't that be fraud as well? Or theft?

 

[cobber]

When the first gun control laws were passed in the US, I doubt the people who made them believed that those laws would ever apply to them, just "those people."

This is kind of the same thing. I'll bet that had this minister known of this law, he supported it 100%. Now we have the inevitable unintended consequences. It's okay to enjoy the irony and it's okay to approve of a prosecution both for that reason as well as to show everyone that the legislators and governor made a huge mistake.

Oh, I'm sure he intended the consequences that are happening. He just didn't intend them to happen to him.

 

[rhino]

Oh, I'm sure he intended the consequences that are happening. He just didn't intend them to happen to him.

I stand corrected!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What I'm wondering, did the Pastor commit a federal felony. Lying on the 4473. Since the tickets were purchased with church funds, the church would be the winner of the raffle. If the church won the raffle, wouldn't they be for purposes of the 4473 the original purchaser? If so did the Pastor sign an affidavit to the effect that he was purchasing the firearm as an agent of said church?

 

[pudly]

What I'm wondering, did the Pastor commit a federal felony. Lying on the 4473. Since the tickets were purchased with church funds, the church would be the winner of the raffle. If the church won the raffle, wouldn't they be for purposes of the 4473 the original purchaser? If so did the Pastor sign an affidavit to the effect that he was purchasing the firearm as an agent of said church?

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.