Comments on: Speaking of law-breaking http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/04/02/speaking_of_law-breaking/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:13:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The Comedian http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/04/02/speaking_of_law-breaking/comment-page-1/#comment-168412 The Comedian Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:07:25 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/04/02/speaking_of_law-breaking/#comment-168412 <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/651657/posts?page=185#185" rel="nofollow">From Free Republic</a> <blockquote>Correction A New York Daily News story incorrectly reported that gun control advocate Sarah Brady may have skirted Delaware's gun laws when she bought a rifle for her adult son but did not declare who was going to own the weapon. The Delaware Department of Justice initially insisted to the Daily News that gun purchasers must declare who the weapon was intended for so that person's background could be checked. On Friday, a spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of Justice said it misinterpreted the law and Brady was not obligated to state that the gun was for her son as long as he was legally qualified to own a gun. In addition, a spokesman for Brady said, "Sarah Brady told the gun store that the gun was for her son and filled out the forms that they asked her to fill out."</blockquote> Also see post <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/651657/posts?page=163#163" rel="nofollow">163</a> from the same thread. From Free Republic

Correction

A New York Daily News story incorrectly reported that gun control advocate Sarah Brady may have skirted Delaware’s gun laws when she bought a rifle for her adult son but did not declare who was going to own the weapon.

The Delaware Department of Justice initially insisted to the Daily News that gun purchasers must declare who the weapon was intended for so that person’s background could be checked.

On Friday, a spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of Justice said it misinterpreted the law and Brady was not obligated to state that the gun was for her son as long as he was legally qualified to own a gun.

In addition, a spokesman for Brady said, “Sarah Brady told the gun store that the gun was for her son and filled out the forms that they asked her to fill out.”

Also see post 163 from the same thread.

]]> By: Mike Johnson http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/04/02/speaking_of_law-breaking/comment-page-1/#comment-168399 Mike Johnson Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:24:56 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/04/02/speaking_of_law-breaking/#comment-168399 Wikipedia doesn't say whether Sarah Brady and her son James were residents of the same state. If they weren't, then Sarah violated 18 USC 922(a)(5). It's part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which required all interstate transfers to go through an FFL. Technically, all violations of 18 USC 922 are felonies, or would be for us ordinary folks. So do you know whether Sarah and James lived in the same state at the time? Wikipedia doesn’t say whether Sarah Brady and her son James were residents of the same state. If they weren’t, then Sarah violated 18 USC 922(a)(5). It’s part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which required all interstate transfers to go through an FFL. Technically, all violations of 18 USC 922 are felonies, or would be for us ordinary folks. So do you know whether Sarah and James lived in the same state at the time?

]]>