Posted on 05/18/2006 6:22:58 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Traders Sports, one of the biggest gun dealers in the state, hopes a hearing in U.S. District Court next week will keep them in business.
Traders has been under scrutiny for several years by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), which is trying to shut down the gun dealer. The ATF decided to revoke Traders gun permit on June 1. After an audit in 2003, the ATF claims that Traders can’t account for 1,767 weapons, and that guns sold at Traders turn up in crimes at an alarming rate.
ATF spokeswoman Marti McKee said she couldn’t comment on the hearing, which is coming up next Thursday, May 25 in San Francisco before Judge Vaughn Walker.
Traders’ owner Tony Cucchiara also declined to comment on the hearing, deferring questions to his lawyer, Malcolm Segal.
The gun shop claims the ATF’s figures don’t add up because of human error, filling out paperwork wrong. They also say the ATF is unfairly targeting the store and going beyond reasonable annual inspections.
“The law allows one inspection a year — that’s a law passed by Congress — and the ATF inspected twice in one year,” said Segal.
Segal said the ATF decided to close Traders after their own hearing in which they used records going back 30 years.
“The errors they claim are really human errors,” Segal said. “Any time there are thousands of transactions with serial numbers in dozens of digits, there is always bound to be human error.”
The ATF initially claimed in its audit that Traders couldn’t account for 7,477 weapons, but the number in the final account was reduced to 1,767. Customers going to Traders this week tended to be on the gun shop’s side.
“I don’t like what they’re doing because it’s a good store,” said Sonny Verde, who comes from Marin County to shop at Traders. “They should go after the criminals not the gun stores.”
Last week the U.S. Department of Justice filed papers saying that guns sold by Traders have been recovered in a crime at a rate of nearly one per day.
About one in every eight guns sold by Traders between 2003 and 2005 has wound up in a crime, the second highest number of guns traced to crimes of any dealer in the nation, according to the Department of Justice.
In 1994, Muckraker magazine featured a story on Traders, listing violations found by the ATF going back to 1970, including sales to people who couldn’t legally buy guns and “straw sales,” which is a purchase by a legal buyer who turns the gun over to someone who can’t legally buy a gun.
I note that you don't address my point about your reasoning resulting in letting criminals define the law. What do you say about that? I also note that you have dropped your insistence that you want to "ban" modern firearms, and I am still waiting for the term you would apply. Do you have one, or will you continue to ignore the fact that this is what you are advocating?
As far as the old lady goes, accidents happen. Unfortunately. Does the fact that one accident occured with one firearm mandate the restriction of them all? Sounds like you think so. And you know what? You can make all the laws in the world, and accidents will still happen. Unfortunately.
Your intepretation of the "general welfare" clause again betrays a mindset tutored by the political left. At this juncture in American history, it's safe to say that clause can be renamed the "anything goes" clause.
I think that you have been living in a "blue state" too long, and have allowed to much leftist-think to penetrate your thinking. I can sympathize, having lived in California for almost 20 years. It was hard to resist.
Your Islamic mutterings are beneath contempt, and are unworthy of response, as you doubtless already realize.
Further, when you enlist/commission in the military, you do so with the full knowledge that you are giving up certain Rights as part of your service.
Civilian arms are the backbone of any free country. The Founders knews this and wanna-be tyrants have been working ever since to repeal or obfuscate it. And hoplophobes like you eat it up with a spoon...
C. "A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State"
A feature of the Second Amendment that distinguishes it from the other rights that the Bill of Rights secures is its prefatory subordinate clause, declaring: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ." Advocates of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right interpretations rely on this declaration, particularly its reference to a well-regulated militia. On their interpretation, the "people" to which the Second Amendment refers is only the "people" in a collective, organized capacity as the state governments, or a small subset of the "people" actively organized by those governments into military bodies. "People" becomes interchangeable with the "State" or its "organized militia."
This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it.
Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
Why do you keep lying about what I said?
They are your words. They are pretty darn clear.
Also, take an English lesson. It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says, "because 'We the people' may need to take up arms as militia's every now and then, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
While acting as active duty militia, you would be subject to militia discipline similar to the armed forces. That was the "regulation" inferred.
It in no way meant a BAN on civilian ownership of guns. No matter how badly you feel a desire to twist the plain meaning, it doesn't work.
And yes... "an armed playground is a polite playground" since you insist on trying to obfuscate the issue with absurd arguments. At least there wouldn't be any Klebold/Harris mass murders that would make it past the first classroom without being plugged by their classmates.
All of these examples are artillary, not arms.
So technically, battle ships would be just fine. At a few hundred million a pop though, I don't think Opra or Gates would be much of a threat.
Most laws are created because of criminals. What is strange about that? There is little need to create law for those not criminal.
How could I "drop" something I never proposed?
The old lady example merely shows that an Absolutist interpretation is not always appropriate. When her right endangers others something has to give.
Since you have used Hamilton to buttress your arguments you should know that my interpretation of the General Welfar clause is the same as his. It gives wide range to legislative action but in no way is "anything goes".
My view of guns is far different than that of the majority of Illinoisians. I like them but realise that not every weapon can be allowed to every person i.e. the 92 year old sharp shooter.
I neglected to respond to the comment about my use of the Islamic terrorists in my earlier response to Joe's remarks.
There is nothing "beneath contempt" about it. It is a realization that certain things cannot be allowed.
It was commonplace for high school shooting teams to bring their weapons to school with them until relatively recently.
The small arms locker is under strict control and arms are restricted on board precisely because of the danger they could pose to the crew from malevolent intent or accident.
Yet another lie wrt my intent. Who is convinced by these repeated LIES when my words are as plain as day?
Yeah... because old people are never victims of crime and do not need to defend themselves ever.
As for the 92YO in question, accidents happen. With more training, fewer accidents happen. Kinda hard to encourage that with the MSM, liberal politicians, and power hungry lobbyists trying to demonize gun possession at every turn with lies and insinuations.
What other restrictions do you support that you will lie about supporting if called on them?
The Constitution of the State of Illinois explicitly defines the militia as made up of all able bodied citizens thereby avoiding the argument that it is only a collective right. It is unfortunate that the Constitution did not do the same although that declaration has not stopped Chicago from enacting onerous gun control legislation.
However, you are wrong about the first thirteen words in the Second are not a preface but rather an explanation for the right being mentioned. There was no need for any kind of preface before the stipulation of the right to own firearms. No "prefaces" were deemed necessary to the other amendments.
Be that as it may do you know of any actual discussion of the Second amendment by the Founders either at the CC or the Congressional debates?
So far you are talking the talk. You can notify me when you have walked the walk.
Oh, you can call ME "perverted" but sniff that I should not be "vulgar" hilarious.
Militias were drilled under regulations they were not applied merely when they were in the field.
Now you are really getting mendacious and are creating arguments you can argue with yourself about such as claiming that I said the Second was intended to disarm the people.
Naturally I am not discussing rifle ranges in schools. At one time they were even allowed in Chicago schools. Kids brought deer rifles in season to schools when I was a kid but they were not allowed in schools because of the "fascists" tyrants running them.
Just as I said proposing that children should be allowed to bring guns to the classroom is the best way to endanger Second amendment rights. There is not a thing absurd about the example though there is about your response.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
These are not MY words.
They are from the USDOJ.
Look it up so you will know what the acronym means and then read the link.
Is everything in your life as hard for you as reading seems to be?
Volunteer militia's were only called up when the need was there. There was no regular drill for them. Nor did the Militia Act of 1792 impose one.
Your statement was that even though there is a Constitutional Amendment as the "Supreme Law of the Land", the States are free to infringe on said Rights and that you have several infringements you approve of. No need to lie about what you said or that I repeated from your exact words.
Nice try at lying about MY words though. Better luck next time.
I was informed and shown on another gun thread that "arms" are NOT merely those weapons which can be carried in the arms as I was arguing but is more general. It means weapons and is derived from the Latin word meaning "tool".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.