Reply With Quote
He had the intent to sell at least. It was obvious the purchase was for the man who would not produce ID. Sorry, often agree with you. Not this time. Not under the cir stances.
Have you read the whole thread?
He had the intent to sell at least. It was obvious the purchase was for the man who would not produce ID. Sorry, often agree with you. Not this time. Not under the cir stances.
I'll bet because it was a sting against this guy. The Hispanics were probably part of a sting.
Now I have, and I haven't changed my mind.
Let's assume you are a store clerk who refuses to sell beer to a minor. then and adult says "hey... I can buy that for you." and asks to buy the beer. Do you knowingly sell that beer knowing in the parking lot, the minor will be getting it?
Actually, that's a ruling on evidence for the case. It would be nice to see the actual ruling.
No, because laws specifically address sales of alcoholic beverages to minors through straw purchases. A convenience store clerk operates under a TABC license and the rules that go along with it.
if so, good sting.
We get it. You are anti-gun.
i'm not anti-gun. i have guns. i've had guns my entire life.
that's a mighty fine analogy!
I'm fairly certain that there are specific laws governing straw purchases on the books and that these laws apply to all gun sales not just those made by someone with an FFL.
You appear to be correct.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gun+dealer+sentenced+6+monthsIt would be nice to see the actual ruling.
why is it bull to assess the need for such reform?
what is the proposed reform?
if he had "reasonable cause to believe" the actual purchaser/disposee was illegal, he's committed a crime. the prosecution put forth their case as to why the defendant had "reasonable cause to believe," and a judge or jury believed that evidence. case closed.
So the governments case was that the defendant should have racial profiled the buyer."In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.""
Nice.
He should have refused the sale after the straw buyer handed the gun to someone else in front of him. Bad decision.
Do you not see the hypocrisy?
On whose part?
The hypocrisy of the Feds is neither here nor there for me. Dude was indicted by a grand jury. Another jury sustained the charges. It's called accountability.
That in a Federal Court, a Federal Prosecutor would advocate racial profiling against hispanics by a white guy, and specifically stated the defendant should have known they were s because they 1) Were hispanic 2) spoke spanish (and english) and 3) wore cowboy clothes.
WTF?
The UNIFORMED POLICEMAN AT THE DOOR didn't even have the right to ask them if they were illegal aliens.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 09-08-2010 at 01:14 PM.
what is the source of this quote?"In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case."
link?
Cool...
Maybe it will be on C-Span.... Maybe. Since the demonrats took over congress, they allow C-Span far less access.
Now I agree with you to a point. However, you have a technicality, and we still haven't seen the actual ruling. The intent of the law was clearly violated. It technically may not have been, but we still need to see the ruling.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
