A blatant double standard on background checks (long)

[friendly_iconoclast]

Two recent threads illustrate this

The first is a now-locked thread in GD about a clergyman who, with undoubtedly good intenions,
violated Oregon's new background check law.
(Disclosure: I held that he should be fined one dollar and court costs, and be sentenced
to writing a public letter of apology).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8120273

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028120273#post6

The story leaves out that he violated Oregons universal background check law

And was being called out as a giant hypocrite for pushing a gun control agenda while violating existing gun laws.

He is in Oregon, and Oregons UBC law makes virtually any transfer of a firearm, even temporary, a felony unless a background check and paperwork is done. He told reporters he gave the gun to a "responsible gun owner" in his congregation for safe keeping until he destroys it- a felony in that state. They did the proper checks to hand it off to him, and he promptly violated the law and transferred possession to someone else.

Opponents of the UBC law had been pushing the absurdity of the law criminalizing acts like that, so when a gun control advocate publicly admitted to breaking the law they demanded he be punished for the violation. And if he isn't it will show a double standard, if he is it will give great publicity to how idiotic it is to make it a felony to give a gun to a person who already has them so they can safely store it for you.

If you going to make a public stand for gun control and in doing so you violate existing gun laws you should expect full and well to be called out for your violations of the law and the glaring hypocrisy of demanding more laws when you can't even comply with existing laws when acting in good faith because they are so messed up.

Some did not feel that he should be prosecuted, sometimes vigorously:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028120273#post35

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028120273#post65

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028120273#post63

Most others simply avoided the awkward question.


The second is from the other gun group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211399

NRA official urges Mainers to reject background checks on gun sales

In it, an NRA spokesperson is quoted as saying, in part:

“Whether or not you own a gun, Question 3 will be a nightmare for all of you,” Cox said. “It will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight.”

To which the author of the OP replied:

Really? Turn law abiding citizens into criminals? How the hell does that work? Either you are law abiding or you're not. Get a background check and no problem, don't get one and you broke the law, ergo, not law abiding. Have I missed something here?

What alternative universe do these people live in? Oh, I forgot. Liburty and freedumb land. Only in a gunner's mind can this reasoning make sense.

The disinterested reader is invited to note the authorship of both...

[Eleanors38]

1. The MSM WILL LEAVE OUT information negative to its gun-ban ideology.

Any law-breaking, any political shenanigans are OK in the service of anti-gun culture war politics; lord knows it has given up decades ago on decent coverage, favoring instead agitprop in this "cause."

I appreciate your posting in the PROPER group. I alerted twice the OP, but it stood for hours more.

[sarisataka]

2. For many years I have supported UBC

As of yesterday I have to question that position.

Many posters indicated that "Universal" means "only those we don't like". If a pro-gc person is transferring a firearm then all parties in the transaction are automatically above suspicion and therefore the laws they have pushed so hard for can simply be ignored.

I am starting to suspect those in favor of gun control are the ones who have not read any of the BoR except the 2nd. The 14th Amendment is apparently meaningless. (Along with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th)

Some seem to have mistaken dystopian writing for a guide.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

[beergood]

3. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

good book, its tied between 1984 and brave new world.

still need to read Fahrenheit 451.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

4. If he violated the law, he should be convicted.

Here's the law:
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.435

Was the parishioner that received the gun a relative or fit under some other exemption?

And here's the minimum penalty if convicted... $100 if he's convicted of the misdemeanor, which is the likely sentence in this case: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/137.286

Reverend Jeremy Lucas doesn't seem upset about the investigation from what I've seen. It will bring him and his church more attention. It would be a bonus if gun nuts can be shown celebrating a conviction!

Happy?

[Duckhunter935]

5. Many of us just think he should be subject to the law that

I am sure he supports and it appears he violated.

[beevul]

7. "It would be a bonus if gun nuts can be shown celebrating a conviction!"

No, the bonus would be a gun control pusher being convicted of violating a...gun control law.

Right now, the bonus is the 'rules for thee but not for me' attitude so many gun control pushers seem to be espousing in favor of someone who broke a gun control law that those gun control pusher types insist is necessary for the rest of us.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. re: "...gun control pusher being convicted of violating a...gun control law."

That's better than the Mark Manes story but not as good as the Leland Yee episode.

[jmg257]

6. Double standards when it comes to people who like guns?? WTF?

The priest broke the law, so is not law-abiding.


Only a misdemeanor - doesn't make him a bad guy.
He can get his gun back as soon as his friend takes him to an FFL and does a background check on him.