SB0085 FIREARM LIABILITY ACT

[45superman]

Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Firearm Liability Act. Provides that a firearm transferor is strictly liable in a civil action for death, injury, or property damage resulting from the use of a firearm that was unlawfully sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred. Provides that the plaintiff may recover punitive damages in addition to all other lawful damages, court costs, and attorney's fees. Provides that a defendant found strictly liable under this Act must pay $10,000 in a civil penalty to the Department of State Police if the defendant sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred a firearm in violation of certain provisions of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that an action under this Act must be commenced within 5 years after the cause of action accrued.

 

http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp...ID=76&GA=96

[Hossua]

Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Firearm Liability Act. Provides that a firearm transferor is strictly liable in a civil action for death, injury, or property damage resulting from the use of a firearm that was unlawfully sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred. Provides that the plaintiff may recover punitive damages in addition to all other lawful damages, court costs, and attorney's fees. Provides that a defendant found strictly liable under this Act must pay $10,000 in a civil penalty to the Department of State Police if the defendant sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred a firearm in violation of certain provisions of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that an action under this Act must be commenced within 5 years after the cause of action accrued.

This sounds like a tolerable one to me, although I don't like the civil liability part. They should just enforce the existing laws.

[45superman]

This sounds like a tolerable one to me, although I don't like the civil liability part. They should just enforce the existing laws.

 

I realize that I'm a bit more militant than some folks, and that my opposition to all gun laws strikes some as extreme, but consider this--if they pass HB 48 (and we just barely defeated an identical bill last year), then any private sale, that doesn't go through a dealer, is an "illegal transfer," which under this bill, would open you up to civil liability (if the person you transferred the gun to ends up committing a felony with the gun), in addition to the criminal charges under HB 48.

[Silver Guardian]

If opposition to all gun laws is extreme, then call me a nut. Laws are not our friend Hossua.

[Hossua]

If opposition to all gun laws is extreme, then call me a nut. Laws are not our friend Hossua.

Without law there can be no freedom. I don't like to see gun laws passed either, but there is either going to be compromise or war. I prefer compromise.

[Ol'Coach]

If opposition to all gun laws is extreme, then call me a nut. Laws are not our friend Hossua.

Without law there can be no freedom. I don't like to see gun laws passed either, but there is either going to be compromise or war. I prefer compromise.

 

Compromise the 2A? No thanks!

 

Explain to me how this bill would control crime.

 

Sorry I don't have a source, but on the ribbon across the screen today on CBS, the FBI made the statement that 80% of all crimes in the US are committed by gangs. Anyone that had the stats for IL already knew that was true in this state. Chicago and border counties with 63% of the population and 73% of the homicides!

 

So, how would this bill do anything to change that?

[papa]

There are to many gun laws on the books already!!! They don't enforce most of the exsisting laws and even if they did it wouldn't change much simply because of the criminal mind set.

 

I'm with Ol' Coach... NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!! :Angry!:

[glide]

we already have too many gun laws on the books that they either don't enforce or they plea bargain around it. How about a new law that says no more being able to plea bargain.

[sctman800]

Here in Illinois "compromise" means we give up something and get nothing in return. NO THANKS!!!!!!!!!!! Jim.

[Buzzard]

Here in Illinois "compromise" means we give up something and get nothing in return. NO THANKS!!!!!!!!!!! Jim.

 

That's exactly right! The Chicago Dems want a 75/25 or better compromise or no deal.

 

We say no deal! This crap stops now! No more giving in! No new controling laws!

[burningspear]

More often than not, Coach is right.

 

This time, y'all, he is right again.

[predator1972baz]

This sounds like a tolerable one to me, although I don't like the civil liability part. They should just enforce the existing laws.

 

I realize that I'm a bit more militant than some folks, and that my opposition to all gun laws strikes some as extreme, but consider this--if they pass HB 48 (and we just barely defeated an identical bill last year), then any private sale, that doesn't go through a dealer, is an "illegal transfer," which under this bill, would open you up to civil liability (if the person you transferred the gun to ends up committing a felony with the gun), in addition to the criminal charges under HB 48.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is the problem with this bill. The bill is saying that transfers that happen without a gun dealer and the gun is used during a crime, the person who bought the gun could be charged.

 

The law is trying to stop more likely hinder a flow of guns that where crminals get them from legal personal. Does that infringe upon the father giving his/her gun to their child. In some ways it does. But what I see is an ATTEMPT to hinder the gun flow, but enacting punishments for the person who is transferring the gun.

 

TO ME THIS IS THE TEST, Now does it help the inner city people of Englewood ? Not really. Who does this truly affect. Does it affect the straw purchaser ? Maybe that is the true intent of the law. So let's talk about straw purchasers.

 

As you know straw purchasers are people that have a clean record, and being such they can buy guns and sell them to criminals for the usage in crime. So the liability act IMO is designed to punish the straw purchaser. Currently right now there isn't any law that punishes the straw purchaser. Yes the criminal is punished if the gun is found and linked to the criminal who did the crime. But nothing involving the straw purchaser.

 

But such a law is a bit dangerous too. Because to punish a straw purchaser with such a law you would have to link the gun to that person who bought it. Right now it's done through receipts at a gun store. But I believe that with this law will come a push for better methods of keeping records, like REGISTRATION. Thus we have the movement towards registration and then, the abuse of power towards banning guns which is exactly what happenned in Washington DC and Chicago Illinois.

 

Personally I don't mind registration, if the process was free of corruption, but it has shown that every time registration has happenned legislation has abused this law and gun registration 90% of the time have tuned into gun bans. The only place where registration has ever worked is in the military.

 

It's because of that corruption that I will fight registration. Straw purchasers is a big issue, they make us law-abiding gunowners look bad. So I do side with the intensions of the law but because of corruption that exists with such laws and the abuse of power that has always happenned when people pass such laws, I cannot side with the firearms liability act.

 

Now the question becomes, what do we do about straw purchasers?

[45superman]

Now the question becomes, what do we do about straw purchasers?

 

My personal solution is to eliminate the need for straw purchasers, by eliminating "prohibited persons" lists. That's right--I'm advocating gun rights for felons who have paid their debt to society (although I would demand that paying that debt take a lot longer than our current "justice" system requires). Anyone who cannot be trusted with a firearm cannot be trusted to run free in society without a custodian--because such a person can acquire firearms illegally, or simply commit their evil by some other method.

[RacerDave6]

Now the question becomes, what do we do about straw purchasers?

It's already a federal crime to give false information on the 4473. The question is asked on that form if the purchase if for yourself or someone else. If you lie on the 4473 to make a straw purchase then it is a federal offence.

 

Enforce the laws that are already on the books!

 

Dave

[abolt243]

Now the question becomes, what do we do about straw purchasers?

 

(430 ILCS 65/3) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑3)

Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in Section 3a, no person may knowingly transfer, or cause to be transferred, any firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser to any person within this State unless the transferee with whom he deals displays a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card which has previously been issued in his name by the Department of State Police under the provisions of this Act.

Straw purchases/transfers are illegal already under the FOID act. Prosecute S Purchasers under existing law, prosecute felons in possession of firearms under existing law. Don't clutter our books with more laws that are ignored or plea bargained away!!!

 

Read the synopsis, the bill just creates more billing opportunities for lawyers!! Plus a neat little $10K payment to the ISP!!

 

Simple solution, when you catch the criminal in possession of a firearm, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law on every charge!!! If gun was obtained through an illegal purchase (most are!), then prosecute the transferror to the fullest extent!!

 

We gotta quit turning bad guys loose with a slap on the wrist!!

 

Tim

[Hossua]

Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Firearm Liability Act. Provides that a firearm transferor is strictly liable in a civil action for death, injury, or property damage resulting from the use of a firearm that was unlawfully sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred. Provides that the plaintiff may recover punitive damages in addition to all other lawful damages, court costs, and attorney's fees. Provides that a defendant found strictly liable under this Act must pay $10,000 in a civil penalty to the Department of State Police if the defendant sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred a firearm in violation of certain provisions of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that an action under this Act must be commenced within 5 years after the cause of action accrued.

This sounds like a tolerable one to me, although I don't like the civil liability part. They should just enforce the existing laws.

 

In total agreement with you guys, but I don't see how another law against illegal transfers will hurt us, unless you plan on doing illegal transfers. Now if they get the definition of "legal transfer" changed I could have a BIG problem with this law, but as it stands I can't raise too much of a stink about it really. Does it help control crime? Doubtful, because it is already a pretty bad idea to illegally transfer firearms.

[Guest YASLIFF]

Well do they provide conditions or a means of verifying what is a current valid is?

 

 

Then Open up insta-check to private party's. on the state level (But where are we currently in Illinois with private FTF sales?)

 

Hey We want to be sure we are not doing any business with illegitimate parties..... with nefarious intentions.

[Silver Guardian]

To those of you who are in agreement with this, give me one legitimate reason why anyone on this planet should be liable for anothers conduct! Even parents aren't liable when their kids go vandalize or destroy something.

[ewellnitz]

SG beat me to it. All this is doing is making YOU liable for someone else's actions. Shoul dyou be held liable if you sell a car to someone and they run over a pedestrian?

 

This is a back door method to try and force legitimate firearms dealers out of business eventually. I can hear the debate in Springfield now about having this apply to ANY transfer. Slippery slope, people.

[RacerDave6]

Also, being a civil action vs a criminal one the burden of proof is much less. Lets say someone filled out the 4473 and lied about the 'straw purchace'. In a criminal suit it would be virtually impossible to prove that the dealer 'knew' the purchaser was lying about it. A civil suit would force the seller to prove that he 'didn't know' the purchaser was lying.

 

Civil suits such as this will put every dealer out of business.

 

Dave

[eric2281]

Now the question becomes, what do we do about straw purchasers?

 

My personal solution is to eliminate the need for straw purchasers, by eliminating "prohibited persons" lists. That's right--I'm advocating gun rights for felons who have paid their debt to society (although I would demand that paying that debt take a lot longer than our current "justice" system requires). Anyone who cannot be trusted with a firearm cannot be trusted to run free in society without a custodian--because such a person can acquire firearms illegally, or simply commit their evil by some other method.

 

The problem is in the justice system. It always has been. I DO NOT advocate this bill whatsoever! :Angry!:

[BShawn]

Now the question becomes, what do we do about straw purchasers?

 

My personal solution is to eliminate the need for straw purchasers, by eliminating "prohibited persons" lists. That's right--I'm advocating gun rights for felons who have paid their debt to society (although I would demand that paying that debt take a lot longer than our current "justice" system requires). Anyone who cannot be trusted with a firearm cannot be trusted to run free in society without a custodian--because such a person can acquire firearms illegally, or simply commit their evil by some other method.

 

The problem is in the justice system. It always has been. I DO NOT advocate this bill whatsoever! :Angry!:

+1

[45superman]

Even if I agreed that this bill is no real threat in and of itself (and I don't agree with that), the problem is that once we start saying, "Well, a little infringement is OK, I guess," then shall not be infringed is off the table, and what's worse, it's us who have taken it off.

 

There is NO "little infringement," NO "acceptable infringement."

[Buzzard]

The problem is in the justice system. It always has been. I DO NOT advocate this bill whatsoever! :Angry!:

 

Absolutely!! And for all you folks that think one more law can't hurt us, you can't possibly be looking back at what's happened in the recent past. You have to read the entire law WORD FOR WORD!! This opens up a HUGE door for those overzealous prosecutors that can't stand guns and have politcal ambitions!!

 

Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Firearm Liability Act. Provides that a firearm transferor is strictly liable in a civil action for death, injury, or property damage resulting from the use of a firearm that was unlawfully sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred. Provides that the plaintiff may recover punitive damages in addition to all other lawful damages, court costs, and attorney's fees. Provides that a defendant found strictly liable under this Act must pay $10,000 in a civil penalty to the Department of State Police if the defendant sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred a firearm in violation of certain provisions of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that an action under this Act must be commenced within 5 years after the cause of action accrued.

 

This law also makes it a liability to TRANSFER a firearm which can mean to loan or even just allow to handle a firearm!! Do you not recall the Wisconsin man who was sentenced to 30 months in prison on a federal conviction of illegally transferring a machine gun?

 

LINK

 

". . . Mr. Olofson had lent an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to a person who was interested in joining the National Guard. While firing the rifle at a public gun range -- he had previously fired some 800 rounds through the rifle without any problems -- the gun malfunctioned, fired two rounds and then jammed. Law enforcement officers at the range questioned the man, referred the case to ATF, and ATF charged Mr. Olofson with the illegal transfer of a machine gun; the Assistant United States Attorney argued that a "malfunction" was no defense . ."

 

How are you supposed to see into the future and possibly know what events might transpire?? The simple act of loaning a firearm to a friend could bring liability penalties on top of unjust criminal charges. And what would become of the poor man in the story below, who just lost his wife and is confined to a wheelchair when he is hit with a $10,000 in a civil penalty on top of all his other misery??

 

Family: Woman shot had unloaded gun

 

 

 

Related Links Jan. 24: Loves Park officer uses deadly force (01/24/09)

Jan. 25: Woman killed by police was Loves Park resident (01/25/09)

By Betsy Lopez Fritscher

RRSTAR.COM

Posted Jan 26, 2009 @ 12:38 AM

Last update Jan 26, 2009 @ 09:29 AM

 

 

 

LOVES PARK — Family and friends say when Suzette “Sue” Babler pointed an unloaded Smith and Wesson .357 at a Loves Park police officer Saturday afternoon, she was looking for a way out.

 

Babler, 53, was shot and killed by the police officer outside of the home she shared with her husband, Kirby, whom she married in 2006.

 

“She was hurting,” said Kirby. “I think she was committing suicide by cop ... The gun was unloaded and she wouldn’t hurt anybody. I wouldn’t give her the bullets.”

 

Loves Park police had arrested Sue earlier in the day. She was charged with battery, aggravated assault and criminal damage to property after a fight with a Loves Park woman.

 

Kirby said the fight had to do with a loan the Bablers’ cosigned but the woman had stopped paying. Sue was taken to jail.

 

“It was the straw that snapped her,” Kirby said. “She went over there and pulled her hair, kicked her and they tussled. Then she came back here and the woman called the cops.”

 

Kirby believes that’s when his wife started on the downward spiral that would end in her death a few hours later.

 

A friend, Amy Sagona, bailed Sue out of jail. Once home, however, Sue headed into a room where her husband kept three guns, including his grandmother’s hunting rifle.

 

“That was the first time I had ever seen her touch a gun,” Kirby said. He said he was able to get one weapon away from her, but she got a second. Kirby said the guns in the home were not loaded and Sue did not know where he kept the bullets.

 

Kirby, who uses a wheelchair to get around, then said he called a neighbor to help. The neighbor called police.

 

“Sue went out to the balcony to get away, jumped off and came back inside the house,” Kirby said. “We wrestled with her and that’s when the ambulance and the cops came ... I was worried about her falling and hurting her back when she ran back into the room and got the third gun.”

 

He said he was going toward the front door to tell the police that Sue was distraught, possibly suicidal, but the gun was not loaded. The police met her at the back door. There wasn’t time to get his warning out, he said.

 

“She ran out the back door and a cop chased her out the back and she got to the gate and turned and pointed the gun at him,” Kirby recalled. “And he killed her.”

 

Police say the officer, who has been put on paid administrative leave, ordered Sue to drop the weapon. When she didn’t comply, the officer fired. Loves Park Deputy police Chief Jim Puckett confirmed that Sue’s gun was not loaded.

 

Sue’s friends say she was a giving person who liked to help others. She worked with neighbors to forge the Martin Shorewood Neighborhood Association in 2006 and was the head of the group, encouraging police enforcement at the parks.

 

But close friends also said that Sue suffered from depression and had been taking anti-depressants for some time.

 

“It’s important to emphasize that she brought extra police to the area to help protect the neighborhood that is in some ways turning on her now and calling her a crazy woman,” said Sagona, a close friend, who was disgusted by some of the talk she had been hearing around town since her friend’s death.

 

“Sue was the one that made the neighborhood’s park safe. She was the most kind-hearted person with a giggle. You would have never known she was depressed because she hid it well ... With all my heart, I can tell you she never would have hurt anybody at that point but herself.”

 

Sagona’s oldest daughter, Jamie Herbert, said she’d remember Sue for the good she had done and not her final day in turbulence.

 

“She was goofy and silly and kind and just gave and gave,” Herbert said, while telling of how the Bablers lent her $100 when she was going through a financial rough patch. “And in the end, she just gave so much and people never gave back to her. It’s sad.”

 

Sue most recently worked as a patient representative in the admitting department at Rockford Memorial Hospital, said Westor Wouri, director of marketing and public relations for the hospital.

 

“We are obviously saddened by the loss, and our hearts go out to her family,” Wouri said.

 

Karen Baxter, next-door neighbor and close friend of the couple, said she’d miss Sue, but would not harbor ill feelings toward the Police Department for her killing.

 

“I can’t judge anybody,” she said. “I’m sure the police officer would never want to take somebody’s life, especially after finding out the circumstances surrounding her. Something happened, something triggered something deep within her.

 

“I don’t want her to be remembered as someone who was a lunatic, because she wasn’t. She was a good person who loved her son; she was selfless.”

 

Kirby said he recognizes that the officer who shot and killed his wife was doing his job. Kirby will begin making funeral and cremation arrangements today.

[Lion of Lincoln]

Now the question becomes, what do we do about straw purchasers?

 

My personal solution is to eliminate the need for straw purchasers, by eliminating "prohibited persons" lists. That's right--I'm advocating gun rights for felons who have paid their debt to society (although I would demand that paying that debt take a lot longer than our current "justice" system requires). Anyone who cannot be trusted with a firearm cannot be trusted to run free in society without a custodian--because such a person can acquire firearms illegally, or simply commit their evil by some other method.

 

That sounds all well and good on paper, but what does that entail in real life? Does the mere act of being released from being imprisoned mean one has paid their debt to society? Are there no additional, perhaps lifelong consequences for one's actions? Perhaps in theory we should take away someone's liberty for the remainder of their natural life because they cannot be trusted to own a firearm, regardless of what crime they may have actually been convicted of. But we don't have infinite dollars and infinite jail space to do such a thing.

 

I find the argument that if a violent criminal really wants to, he can acquire a firearm illegally to be lacking. If a seasoned burglar really wanted to break into my home and steal all my hard earned stuff there's not a whole lot I'd be able to do to stop him. But I see no reason why I should leave my front door open and post a big sign saying "Here you go, Mr. Burglar."

[Lion of Lincoln]

Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Firearm Liability Act. Provides that a firearm transferor is strictly liable in a civil action for death, injury, or property damage resulting from the use of a firearm that was unlawfully sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred. Provides that the plaintiff may recover punitive damages in addition to all other lawful damages, court costs, and attorney's fees. Provides that a defendant found strictly liable under this Act must pay $10,000 in a civil penalty to the Department of State Police if the defendant sold, transferred, or caused to be sold or transferred a firearm in violation of certain provisions of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that an action under this Act must be commenced within 5 years after the cause of action accrued.

 

The problem with this law, at least as I read it, is that the transferor is treated as a co-conspirator. What else could "strictly liable" mean? If the transferor knowingly transfers a firearm to someone who should not possess one, then perhaps he should be charged with illegal transfer. If he is an actual co-conspirator in a crime, then charge him as a co-conspirator. But the transferor ought not be made into a co-conspirator when he's not.

 

If you want to quibble about the differences between civil and criminal law, I'm not interested. Legal punishment is legal punishment. And I still say the lowered burden of proof in a civil case is unjust.

[45superman]

If a seasoned burglar really wanted to break into my home and steal all my hard earned stuff there's not a whole lot I'd be able to do to stop him. But I see no reason why I should leave my front door open and post a big sign saying "Here you go, Mr. Burglar."

 

The difference is that taking measures to secure your home from burglars doesn't in any way infringe on anyone's rights--unlike the passage of gun laws.

 

My problem with laws like this is that they make a new "crime" out of activity that is harmless in and of itself. The crime of murder (or armed robbery, forcible rape, etc.) clearly has a victim, whose rights are clearly violated, therefore making the criminalizing of such behavior quite proper. The problem is that the kinds of people who won't be deterred from such behavior by their own morality are also often not deterred by laws. The "solution" we have been offered is making that behavior more difficult--by prohibiting felons (statistically the most likely to commit violent crimes) from possessing firearms, we try to deter them from doing so, despite the fact that their mere possession of a firearm harms no one--we have invented a victimless "crime."

 

Unfortunately, the kinds of people willing to commit the crime of murder are probably not going to flinch from committing the "crime" of acquiring a firearm illegally. So, we pass another law, to make it more difficult to break the illegal possession law. This time, the new law creates the victimless "crime" of straw purchasing, designed to prevent the victimless "crime" of illegal possession, itself designed to prevent the real crime.

 

Now, we're told that straw purchasing being illegal isn't enough, and we have to make it "more illegal."

 

Where does it end, and how does one reconcile any of it with shall not be infringed?

[Lion of Lincoln]

If a seasoned burglar really wanted to break into my home and steal all my hard earned stuff there's not a whole lot I'd be able to do to stop him. But I see no reason why I should leave my front door open and post a big sign saying "Here you go, Mr. Burglar."

 

The difference is that taking measures to secure your home from burglars doesn't in any way infringe on anyone's rights--unlike the passage of gun laws.

 

My problem with laws like this is that they make a new "crime" out of activity that is harmless in and of itself. The crime of murder (or armed robbery, forcible rape, etc.) clearly has a victim, whose rights are clearly violated, therefore making the criminalizing of such behavior quite proper. The problem is that the kinds of people who won't be deterred from such behavior by their own morality are also often not deterred by laws. The "solution" we have been offered is making that behavior more difficult--by prohibiting felons (statistically the most likely to commit violent crimes) from possessing firearms, we try to deter them from doing so, despite the fact that their mere possession of a firearm harms no one--we have invented a victimless "crime."

 

Unfortunately, the kinds of people willing to commit the crime of murder are probably not going to flinch from committing the "crime" of acquiring a firearm illegally. So, we pass another law, to make it more difficult to break the illegal possession law. This time, the new law creates the victimless "crime" of straw purchasing, designed to prevent the victimless "crime" of illegal possession, itself designed to prevent the real crime.

 

Now, we're told that straw purchasing being illegal isn't enough, and we have to make it "more illegal."

 

Where does it end, and how does one reconcile any of it with shall not be infringed?

 

You could ask where the stranglehold on our First Amendment rights ends. With libel laws? With obscenity laws? If every right were absolute and could not be "violated" under any circumstances imaginable, imprisonment and execution would be wrong too.

 

If any and all gun laws are unconstitutional, then why aren't inmates in prison allowed to exercise it? Where in the Second Amendment does it say inmates rights shall be infringed?

 

Theory AND practical application are important.

[45superman]

You could ask where the stranglehold on our First Amendment rights ends. With libel laws? With obscenity laws?

 

Libel clearly does violate the rights of another, and therefore one has no right to libel. Obscenity is a bit murkier, but some would argue that children (for example) are "harmed" by exposure to obscenity, and that their rights are thus violated. I'm not sure I buy that, but I'll leave that fight to the "obscenity rights activists"--it's not an issue I care enough to fight about.

 

If every right were absolute and could not be "violated" under any circumstances imaginable, imprisonment and execution would be wrong too.

I never claimed that "every right" is "absolute and could not be 'violated' under any circumstances imaginable--my position is the perhaps worn-out cliche that "your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose"--it may be trite and overused, but it expresses the point well.

 

If any and all gun laws are unconstitutional, then why aren't inmates in prison allowed to exercise it? Where in the Second Amendment does it say inmates rights shall be infringed?

 

Theory AND practical application are important.

 

Prison inmates sacrifice some of the freedoms of free citizens, as someone who believes in the importance of "practical application," as well as "theory," would understand, I imagine.

 

Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'm not interested in banging my head against the wall trying to convince someone whose mind is made up.

[Lion of Lincoln]

My problem with laws like this is that they make a new "crime" out of activity that is harmless in and of itself. The crime of murder (or armed robbery, forcible rape, etc.) clearly has a victim, whose rights are clearly violated, therefore making the criminalizing of such behavior quite proper. The problem is that the kinds of people who won't be deterred from such behavior by their own morality are also often not deterred by laws. The "solution" we have been offered is making that behavior more difficult--by prohibiting felons (statistically the most likely to commit violent crimes) from possessing firearms, we try to deter them from doing so, despite the fact that their mere possession of a firearm harms no one--we have invented a victimless "crime."

 

Perhaps you should consider that mere freedom is NOT the sole defining principle of society. And that a "free society" that is nothing more than anarchy and chaos is neither desirable nor free. I can tell you there aren't any gun laws to infringe on anyone's rights in Somalia. In fact, there aren't any laws of any kind there.

 

A violent criminal has a proven track record of irresponsibility and of being a danger to society. His possession of a firearm cannot be consider as an singular event "in and of itself." It is because we constantly SEE the results of violent criminals having firearms and realize that possession is not a singular event in and of itself. The proven risk to the liberty of the righteous by the wicked is unacceptable.

 

Unfortunately, the kinds of people willing to commit the crime of murder are probably not going to flinch from committing the "crime" of acquiring a firearm illegally. So, we pass another law, to make it more difficult to break the illegal possession law. This time, the new law creates the victimless "crime" of straw purchasing, designed to prevent the victimless "crime" of illegal possession, itself designed to prevent the real crime.

 

So why have law against murder then, if someone who really is intent on murdering will do so anyway? That the criminal wants to commit a crime is not enough. He must also have the ability. If he is denied the ability to purchase the firearm himself, he must seek the assistance of someone else. That person (straw purchaser) must be someone with a clean record. Is he willing to risk jail time and to help someone else terrorize society?

 

I had a coworker once who found out I had a FOID card and asked me if I could get something for him. He tried to be slick about it. I knew he had been in County for something related to his gang activity, because I had overheard him talking to another co-worker about it. And he did say he was always scared about getting laid off from work because their weren't too many employers eager to hire a convicted felon.

 

Obviously if he's asking me, someone he didn't know very well, it isn't THAT easy for a convicted felon to get a hold of a firearm.