TexasCHLforum.com

ninjabread wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Unless they can prove that the buyer KNEW he was ineligible, the system might have failed, but he committed no crime that I’m aware of. The upshot is that, in my opinion, you can’t just seize something without compensation, when that thing was purchased in good faith. If gov’t is going to seize a gun that I bought in good faith, not knowing I was ineligible, then I expect the gov’t to refund the entire cost to me of buying that gun, including sales tax paid. Otherwise, it’s a taking, which is unconstitutional.....not to mention ain’t right.

What if the gun you bought was stolen? Does the government have to refund your money when they take it?

What if somebody in Colorado buys weed and the DEA comes along and seizes it? Should the DEA have to reimburse them? What if they say, "Bruh, I thought it was legal in Colorado." Does that mean they can't be prosecuted unless the DEA can prove that the buyer KNEW it was illegal?

There is also a substantive difference between buying a stolen article, and buying one through an FFL with a 4473 and a NICS check. If it is stolen, it doesn’t matter if it’s a gun or stereo, or a bicycle. The original owner has a right to get it back. As long as you didn’t knowingly buy a stolen article, you don’t get prosecuted, but you don’t get to inflict loss upon the victim by making HIM pay you, and it’s not gov’t’s job to reimburse you for having purchased stolen property. That’s just the luck of the draw. But when you do to a gun store, pick out a gun (new or used, it doesn’t matter) that is in that store’s inventory, the gun has presumably been properly vetted before it is ever put on the shelf. It is a safe and reasonable assumption that it isn’t stolen property. In good faith, you fill out the 4473, go through the NICS check, pass, and take the gun home, and THAT gun is confiscated without compensation, that is a taking. YOU are the victim, not someone who had their gun stolen and then sold to you.

Unless they can prove that the buyer KNEW he was ineligible, the system might have failed, but he committed no crime that I’m aware of. The upshot is that, in my opinion, you can’t just seize something without compensation, when that thing was purchased in good faith. If gov’t is going to seize a gun that I bought in good faith, not knowing I was ineligible, then I expect the gov’t to refund the entire cost to me of buying that gun, including sales tax paid. Otherwise, it’s a taking, which is unconstitutional.....not to mention ain’t right.

For instance, it is easily believable (for me, anyway) that someone who has recent a bipolar disorder diagnosis and has gone off his meds (this is not at all uncommon with bipolar disorder), could easily be in such a state of denial due to his illness that he doesn’t rationally know that he is ineligible to buy a gun. Let’s say he’s on the manic swing of his disease, and his mood improves remarkably. He seems normal, even happy and energetic to those who don’t know him. (This is what happened with my friend who was bipolar, who eventually killed himself.) He decides that it would be fun to own a .22 rifle to go plinking with, so he goes to his LGS and buys a little Ruger 10/22. The NICS check goes through because his condition hasn’t been reported into the system yet. He buys the gun and takes it home.

3 weeks later, the feds show up and confiscate his gun without compensation. Is that justice? Let’s say that they go so far as to charge him with a felony. His lawyer discovers from the man’s family that he’s bipolar and was off his meds. “Your honor, yes, my client purchased a gun in violation of federal law, but he was hardly in a position of making responsible decisions. He wasn’t rational. I ask the court to drop the charges so that my client can get treatment as soon as possible instead of languishing in the prison system.” The judge agrees and dismisses the case. What about the man’s money? That might pay for a month or more of bipolar meds.....or for part of his legal fees.

A gov’t that would not compensate this man for the value taken would not be a just gov’t. I have no problem with gov’t confiscating firearms from convicted felons who shouldn’t have gotten through NICS. However, I would ALSO want to see those felons charged and tried for unlawfully purchasing a firearm. Without an insanity defense, no convicted felon can believably claim that he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to buy or possess guns. If there’s a fly in the federal ointment, it’s that they almost never charge anyone with a felony who has knowingly violated this law. If they actually DID that, there’d be a lot less of this kind of crime happening. Instead, they wait until until the convicted felon commits another felony with the gun, and then they charge him with felony possession of a firearm. They could have charged him back when he bought the gun, gotten him off the street, and prevented the commission of the other felony.

.....but that would be WAY too much efficiency to expect with the taxpayers’ dollars.