According to a minute entry, Gottsfield concluded that evidence against Iknadosian was not sufficient to support conviction based on a technical legal issue. Because the gun buyers all were eligible to acquire firearms, he said, their deception did not amount to a "material falsification." Consequently, Gottsfield ruled, the evidence did not show felonious conduct by Iknadosian. [More]So requiring purchasers to submit to required mandated background checks and jumping through all the hoops before completing their transactions is "a technical legal issue"? Y'know, if you're going to get in this much trouble for leaving a record trail of compliance, doesn't that create a powerful incentive to just go off the books altogether?
Hey, I wonder if he could get me some full autos and grenades I hear are all the rage in border area gun stores?
Gosh, all this hoop-de-doo--and when they get a guy, they can't even keep him!
[Via Chris K]
UPDATE: Vanderboegh has more.
2 comments:
Popcorn was a living legend down here. May his Rest in Peace.
How is it legal to brew your own beer or wine for personal consumption yet you cannot distill hard liquor even for personal consumption? Home brewing beer is all the rage yet home distilling, even not selling for a profit is illegal.
All the people he sold guns to were legally eligible to buy them. That's as far as his responsibility goes.
Mr. Iknadosian looks FAR more trustworthy than Rahm Emmanuel.
Iknadosian. Interesting. Armenian? Like the huindreds of thousands of people ethnically cleansed from the population of Turkey about 100 years ago? He would have more reason than most to disregard gun control laws, yet he goes by the book.
If you sell 100 guns, one of them is going o be linked to some crime at some time, maybe several owners later. Second-Hand Item Transfer happens.
Post a Comment