Wall Street Journal

[BigJim]

http://http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704904604576335162888589404.html

Mr. Shipley in this article doesn't appear to have done anything that many of us have not done many times. He simply bought a rifle and sold it. it's crazy how things can go so wrong so quick and an innocent man becomes a victim.

[bajabuc]

Either "Big Brother" doesn't want this news story spread or my computer is screwed up...I can't open it

[Guest nicemac]

Either "Big Brother" doesn't want this news story spread or my computer is screwed up...I can't open it

Bad link.

Try this one:

An American Gun in Mexico - WSJ.com

[Guest nicemac]

Love this nugget:

"Mexico has strict legal restrictions on gun ownership, with most legitimate sales processed through one tiny store on a military base on the periphery of Mexico City."

How's that working out for them?

[monkeylizard]

Mr. Shipley in this article doesn't appear to have done anything that many of us have not done many times. He simply bought a rifle and sold it. it's crazy how things can go so wrong so quick and an innocent man becomes a victim.

Maybe.

1) I buy a gun for $750 for my personal use, decide for whatever reason to toss it up on TGO Classifieds and sell it for $1000.

2) I know where I can get a $1000 gun for $750 and purchase it with the intent of selling it for the profit.

Either way it goes from licensed dealer or individual, to me, to my buyer. Either way I pay $750 and make $250 in the process.

The difference is in the intent. In #1, I intended to keep it for myself, but didn't. In #2, I never intended to keep it. The intent was to earn profit. That's the hard part to prove in a case like this. What was Shipley's intent? Apparently the jury thought his intent was to buy and sell for profit.

"Mr. Shipley was thrilled to be paid for a job that allowed him to practice his marksmanship, his family says, and stepped up his firearms sales in 2005 to pay for his wife's medical treatment and expenses when the couple adopted their daughter in September 2004 and their son in August 2005."

If he was selling off his pre-existing collection to pay his bills, no problem. If during that time, he was also purchasing those same items he was selling, I think the prosecution would have a decent case that he was buying with the intent of reselling for profit.

On the other hand, if there is no proof that the main reason for the purchases was to make money for his family medical/kid expenses, then they're throwing a law-abiding citizen under the bus for being an unintentional cog in the cartel gun-running machine.

Edited May 23, 2011 by monkeylizard