E Jean Carroll, writer who bested Trump in court, surrenders gun to police

Oh, so you can’t explain it or refute it.

Typical.

 

It doesn't exist. I refuted the false claim by pointing out that gun shows aren't magically exempt from running BGC's.

And I'm right, unless you can prove otherwise. But, we know you can't. All you can do is repeat the lie you've been told.

 

So you’re claiming the private sale exemption doesn’t exist ?

Ok, now it’s your turn to refute your own steaming manure .

 

Does the FFL regulation not apply sellers who aren't "in the business to sell guns", or, "sellers who aren't primarily selling guns to make a profit"? That's exactly right. It isn't a "loophole ". The law was written to exclude those sellers. It doesn't matter if that seller is at a gun show, a Walmart parking lot, or in their driveway. But, you didn't know that. Did you?

 

No nerve struck; just pointing out facts. Your argument is fallacious, and for some reason, you're going out of your way to support intentional criminal possession of a firearm. I understand you want to change the subject to be about gun shows to hide from your previous posts. I don't have any problem whatsoever with requiring background checks for firearm sales at gun shows. So you're just ranting about nonsense to change the subject from your support of criminal firearm possession. How awkward that must be....

The irony here is that Carroll has clearly been in illegal possession of a firearm and now she can still go to a gun show and buy a gun because of radical fringe leftists who support her not being prosecuted for her crime. The last thing we need is more people who intentionally commit felonies to possess guns. If only you agreed

 

the left is all about passing MORE laws to harass the law abiding while intentionally refusing to enforce the laws on the books because their goal is to harass lawful gun owners and not impede one of their major constituency groups-armed felons and their supporters

 

So , after all that, it’s still a loophole that allows the transfer of a firearm without a background check.

Tgank you. LOOPHOLE !

 

Excellent ! So you support universal background checks and you agree Jean isn’t a criminal until she is convicted.

 

The definition of being a criminal is being someone who has committed a crime. Carroll has said under oath that she committed a crime. If she lied about it under oath that's a crime. No matter how you slice it, she's a criminal.

 

Is that how Carol got her gun?

 

congress arguably does not have the power under the interstate commerce clause to make those who are limited to selling second hand firearms INTRASTATE conduct a background check Congress didnt have the votes and most likely not the jurisdiction to extend the brady requirements to private sellers

 

wrong as usual. the brady act only applies to those who have federal firearms licenses because only they can buy and sell across state lines

 

All that means is the person who transferred it to her may not be able to be prosecuted under certain circumstances. She must still be licensed or it is a felony for her to take possession of it. There is no loophole for illegal ownership of a firearm. The length you're going to try to defend criminal possession of a firearm is absolutely absurd. It's a crime. Don't ever pretend to care about firearm regulations or stricter gun control. That ship has sailed.

She did a very bad thing. A normal person who did what she did would be sentenced to three and a half years.

 

So by that definition , the Orange Stain is a criminal because he was found liable for sexual assault, a criminal act. Right ?

 

Oh good, you agree that illegal firearms transfers are illegal and that “taking possession” of a firearm without a license is a “bad thing”.

I will be citing this post by you many times in the future.

As for Jean, when she is indicted and convicted she will be a criminal . Looks like a slam dunk case , but it still has to take place .
Little thing called due process.

 

It isn't a loophole. You obviously don't know what a loophole is...lol

 

what do you expect? gun banners generally haven't a clue about the laws, the uses of firearms or the things they want to ban. all they know is that people who own firearms often don't buy into their leftwing agenda

 

firearm ownership should never need a license, that is abhorrent to the second amendment

 

as usual you are wrong yet again. Trump was not found guilty of anything--you need to learn the difference between civil liability and a criminal conviction

 

Suing Trump, her rapist, is dangerous, too.

It's hard to know if Trump's tirades are enough to motivate an attack - like Jan 6, etc., etc.

But, at least they wouldn't be aware that she was armed.

 

Not according to @CornPop . You need a license to “take possession “ of a firearm.

 

No ? Ok please lend us your wisdom on what constitutes a “loophole “ in this context.

waiting…….

 

Just a sec , I’m applying your buddy @CornPop definition of a criminal . See his post on Jean.

 

That's incorrect in most jurisdictions. NY it might be true

 

"an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded"

The FFL regulation was never intended to be applied to private sellers who aren't "in the business of selling guns".

The statute was written that way intentionally