ID requirement

[Flash]

EG,... An aggressive prosecutor claims a firearm seller that requires certain documentation precluding his sale, to validate the buyers legal standing to purchase, has proclaimed/qualified her/himself as an expert in the eye of the law as to the validity of said documents, and therefore, when the documents turn out to be forged/invalid, and the buyer busted for being a prohibited possessor who rolls on the seller for a lesser conviction, the document expert/seller should be charged for an illegal sale, as well?

Any thoughts on that one?

Sure. In Arizona you're okay as long as you didn't knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited purchaser. So, a self proclaimed expert (there are plenty in the gun world) thinks the documentation is okay, so he's in the clear and he didn't KNOWINGLY sell the gun to a prohibited possessor in spite of the fact that he's an incompetent expert (there's no law against that).

 

[Suck My Glock]

And while you are free to demand at time of sale whatever you choose,...it has ALWAYS been rude and just plain bad manners.

 

[shooter444]

Sure. In Arizona you're okay as long as you didn't knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited purchaser. So, a self proclaimed expert (there are plenty in the gun world) thinks the documentation is okay, so he's in the clear and he didn't KNOWINGLY sell the gun to a prohibited possessor in spite of the fact that he's an incompetent expert (there's no law against that).

Ahhh, but, could validating a buyers credentials, and thereby judging him to be a valid/legal purchaser/possessor, yet, eventually finding out he wasn't, make a seller liable for his/her wrong judgement? Especially after the illegal possessor commits a crime with the purchase?

I can foresee a prosecutor's cross-examination of a seller being, "Well, if you did not know all along that the buyer was NOT PROHIBITED from purchase, WHY did you demand documentation?" Obviously you had concerns for the buyers legality, or you wouldn't have asked for documentation?

In other words, by merely taking on the legal responsibility to judge a buyer's legal possession status, it could put the seller in jeopardy of being responsible for his/her judgement.

Where as, if NO DOCUMENTATION JUDGEMENT is made, the seller can simply fall back with the defense that under Arizona LEGAL STATE LEGISLATION FIREARM PRIVATE SALE PROTECTION LAW, of, he/she seller was UNAWARE the buyer was a prohibited possessor, period.

Which would force the burden of proof of an illegal sale to a prohibited possessor, AKA, that the seller DID HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUYERS ILLEGAL STATUS, to fall upon the prosecution.

All this legal action, could be avoided, imo, if the seller chose NOT to become a document validating expert, and just make the sale within state law requirement, ONLY!

And thereby, remain lawfully protected for having no prior knowledge of buyer's legal, or illegal, possession status.

Hence, as long as there is no proof of seller's prior knowledge to be found concerning the buyer's possession status, which would be the absolute case in selling to a complete stranger, no conviction for an illegal sale to a prohibited possessor could be possible.

YES?......................... No?

Strictly from a cut and dry legal position, of course.

Some people think just because they reviewed a buyer's paper work, they fall under some sort of fantasy contrived legal protection they have created in their own little mind!

Bottom line, gentlemen and ladies, no amount of paper work can protect you from a sale with prior knowledge of the buyers illegal status. And NO LACK of paper work should cause a court action against any seller in Az. for an illegal sale to a prohibited possessor without prior knowledge of buyer's status.

 

[YNOTAZ]

Ahhh, but, could validating a buyers credentials, and thereby judging him to be a valid/legal purchaser/possessor, yet, eventually finding out he wasn't, make a seller liable for his/her wrong judgement? Especially after the illegal possessor commits a crime with the purchase?

I can foresee a prosecutor's cross-examination of a seller being, "Well, if you did not know all along that the buyer was NOT PROHIBITED from purchase, WHY did you demand documentation?" Obviously you had concerns for the buyers legality, or you wouldn't have asked for documentation?

This could happen but a good defense attorney would ask:

Are you a trained LEO?
Have you been trained in validating identification?
Have you been authorized to validate identification by the federal Government?

Then closing argument establishing that the US government says that NO LEO is capable of establishing the legality of a person unless they are both trained and authorized by the federal government so how could a civilian, taking every precaution possible be held responsible?

Now my argument presumes equal protection under the law and common sense.

Oh crap, never mind.

 

[shooter444]

This could happen but a good defense attorney would ask:

Are you a trained LEO?
Have you been trained in validating identification?
Have you been authorized to validate identification by the federal Government?

Then closing argument establishing that the US government says that NO LEO is capable of establishing the legality of a person unless they are both trained and authorized by the federal government so how could a civilian, taking every precaution possible be held responsible?

Now my argument presumes equal protection under the law and common sense.

Oh crap, never mind.

Ahhh, but, back at'cha! :ugeek:

If you are NOT a trained LEO, and HAVE NOT been trained in validating identification, or HAVE NOT been authorized to validate identification by the federal Government, why are you demanding the production of documentation, and then making a legal judgement to the validity of the buyer's legal possession status, prior to the sale, from those documents?

:naughty: No, no, no! You can't have it both ways! :naughty: You can't act like a document validator and then not be responsible for such action! :naughty: You obviously considered such action LEGALLY VALID, or, WHY DO IT? :naughty:

(above is strictly taking a devil's :twisted: advocate point of view, for argument sake)

 

[knockonit]

who the fudge gives a shiat, at this point, if i was worreid about a prosecutor coming after me, i't be the same for using the family bathroom, same questions,"why did you use it when you had no kids, no family, yada yada ydada.

because its my fricken right, now prove otherwise.

 

[shooter444]

I'm sorry, Knockonit, but you completely lost me.
Can you clarify the point you are trying to make, sometimes I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer?

thanks

 

[knockonit]

The point is, who gives a shiat what a prosecutor may or may not try to do, if one worries constantly about repercussions of a grey area, nothing would be accomplished in anything.
There will always be someone who does not agree, and will attempt to defame, deflat or otherwise create issues.
I say go forth do what one deems is necessary to quell their own desire and or fear, and be done with it.

not slow, i was not very clear, the afternoon nap groggies, hehe

 

[YNOTAZ]

(above is strictly taking a devil's :twisted: advocate point of view, for argument sake)

I guess that's the point. They have to porve knowledge or intent. All I have to show is I did what is required of a stupid civilian to negate their "proof of knowledge or intent."

Oh yeah, AND I had to sell the firearm because Mom is on her death bed with cancer, the hospital bills are rising, and the bank is foreclosing on their house. I stare at the jury with mopey eyes while telling them.

Hell they would give me federal assistance and a ride home in a Limo.

 

[shooter444]

The point is, who gives a shiat what a prosecutor may or may not try to do, if one worries constantly about repercussions of a grey area, nothing would be accomplished in anything.
There will always be someone who does not agree, and will attempt to defame, deflat or otherwise create issues.
I say go forth do what one deems is necessary to quell their own desire and or fear, and be done with it.

not slow, i was not very clear, the afternoon nap groggies, hehe

OK, I got'cha! Basically, you stated everything I did, only in a nut shell!

To reiterate, my whole point is, screw the paper trail hoop all the ignorant are trying to jump through, because this human right, is rather well protected by our Arizona somewhat citizen/sovereignty based state.

No matter how many slave mentality zombie types move here!

P.S,..........Personally, I just can't bring myself around to buying from someone so programmed, that they believe all the hyped bullshit surrounding any ID requirement.

How could anyone?

 

[Azbuilder]

Whew !

 

[shooter444]

Whew !

WHEW!! is right!!!

It has really been cathartic to finally enlighten/discourage the ignorant who think any form of paper work, e.g., driver license, CCW card, rent receipts, pass port, bill of sale, birth certificate, etc. etc.,... will prevent them from legal charges if they sell to a prohibited possessor!

Arizona Law dose not say " selling to prohibited possessors will not be prosecuted, if you have a bunch of paper work!

It simply states " if you knowingly sell to prohibited possessor, you pay the legal price",...period!

 

[Flash]

To bad we can't do "likes" shooter444 I'd give you one.

 

[XJThrottle]

Give him a rep point.

 

[Ranger1]

Whew !

WHEW!! is right!!!

It has really been cathartic to finally enlighten/discourage the ignorant who think any form of paper work, e.g., driver license, CCW card, rent receipts, pass port, bill of sale, birth certificate, etc. etc.,... will prevent them from legal charges if they sell to a prohibited possessor!

Arizona Law dose not say " selling to prohibited possessors will not be prosecuted, if you have a bunch of paper work!

It simply states " if you knowingly sell to prohibited possessor, you pay the legal price",...period!

So if you knowingly sell to a bad guy??? Huh. Anyone could look like a priest or a saint. When in fact they could be a serial killer. I suppose by what you are saying if the gun was ever tracked back to me my life will be in the hands of a specially selected jury and they will say if I knowingly sold to this guy or gal. Huh. Then I guess I better buy from a Private party people, not sign the receipt and give no info. That way it can't be tracked to me. Thanks I will do that from Now on.

 

[YNOTAZ]

So if you knowingly sell to a bad guy???

I think you answered your own question.

Then I guess I better buy from a Private party people, not sign the receipt and give no info. That way it can't be tracked to me. Thanks I will do that from Now on.

If you never want a firearm traced back to you, then yes, but didn't you say you take a picture of CCW & DL. That blows the whole anonymity theory.

 

[17-21-23]

I will only sell to a private party if the buyer can show me an ID and CCW. I do not keep record of the sale but, gives me a little peace of mind knowing the person has a CCW. JMO

 

[XJThrottle]

Why would some of you require a CCW? Average Joe gun buyer mostly likely won't have it.

 

[Ranger1]

Or a DL.

 

[shooter444]

I will only sell to a private party if the buyer can show me an ID and CCW. I do not keep record of the sale but, gives me a little peace of mind knowing the person has a CCW. JMO

WHY does that give you peace of mind?