Murder Suspect Who Sought Gun Shows Risk of New Rule for Fugitives and Background Checks

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/murd...ground-checks/

Well well well What have the ever trumpers got to say about this?
hmmm?

__________________
‏

President’s campaign chairman is waiting to find out if he’s going to prison. Architect of bin Laden raid is daring president to take his clearances. Reality show contestant/WH employee has tape of $180K offer she got to stay quiet. Years of chaos in one day.

All that comes to mind is some snowflake whining that he is "pro-gun, BUT".

The Gun Show "loophole" has been proven a left wing lie for years.
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...bout-gun-shows
My personal experience validates this as I have yet to attend one where my purchase did not require a background check. Recent mass shootings have not involved illegally purchased weapons. Why does the left lie about that?

__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Your observations reflect mine. The only person I've seen at gun shows selling without checks are the guy in the far rear corner selling off grandpa's Model 12 and Model 70, and the teenager at the hot dog stand.

What criminal in their right mind would attend a gun show with several cops in attendance to pick up a gun when it can be purchased on a street corner faster and cheaper?

Did you happen to catch this part of the article?

In the end, Beardsley was not able to buy the gun. But experts say it wasn’t his murder warrant that prevented him from doing so.

So the system worked. But that's a bad thing.

I've no idea why the ever trumper remark.

Well, I would first say that no matter what belief this article is trying to instill, under federal law, people with murder warrants are not allowed to buy a gun.

Federal law doesn't ban people who have a warrant from OWNING a gun, (the right to own can only be disabled after conviction), just from receiving one that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

No matter what this article says, there is no reason why the information about this guy's warrant can't be put into the NICS database and be used to outright deny any purchase anywhere in the USA. The law clearly states:

922(n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

When filling out the 4473, the transferee must answer yes or no, "Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (question 11.b).

That is asked BEFORE "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?" (question 11.c).

And that is asked BEFORE "Are you a fugitive from justice?" (question 11d).

So, Bloomberg wants us to believe that a person could be held criminally liable for misrepresenting themselves in question 11b, that they do not have a warrant, but that information, that they do actually have a warrant, is not --in and of itself - a criteria for denying the purchase?

Well, guess what? I think it is just a case of Bloomberg's "The Trace" writing a propaganda piece trying to get people who have a superficial knowledge of the law, to get outraged and write crap like you did here.

You're like a trained seal, barking for a red herring . . .

__________________

you don't think we should flag "murder warrant" as a cause not to sell a gun?

__________________
‏

President’s campaign chairman is waiting to find out if he’s going to prison. Architect of bin Laden raid is daring president to take his clearances. Reality show contestant/WH employee has tape of $180K offer she got to stay quiet. Years of chaos in one day.

"But in February, the DOJ began requiring that background check screeners only deny gun purchases to some people with open arrest warrants — those who had fled across state lines in order to escape justice".

__________________
‏

President’s campaign chairman is waiting to find out if he’s going to prison. Architect of bin Laden raid is daring president to take his clearances. Reality show contestant/WH employee has tape of $180K offer she got to stay quiet. Years of chaos in one day.

I think the author is trying to make a point they don't have, and using an example that fails to prove their point even if they had one.

Murder Suspect Who Sought Gun Shows Risk of New Rule

new rule:
"But in February, the DOJ began requiring that background check screeners only deny gun purchases to some people with open arrest warrants — those who had fled across state lines in order to escape justice".

__________________
‏

President’s campaign chairman is waiting to find out if he’s going to prison. Architect of bin Laden raid is daring president to take his clearances. Reality show contestant/WH employee has tape of $180K offer she got to stay quiet. Years of chaos in one day.