Write the President, your senators and representative. Since this is going to be a political case, get the politicians involved.
With enough attention, maybe people will begin to understand that the gun laws are insane and need to be changed.
The NRA-ILA web site has a facility to email everyone.
I think you're confusing two unrelated concepts: mens rea, on the one hand, and prosecutorial discretion, on the other. While it is true that 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3) and (b)(5) do not require a criminal intent, it doesn't follow that the ATF should ignore the presence or absence of a criminal intent when deciding whom to prosecute for what. If you think dealing with today's ATF is bad, an ATF that throws the book at every person who technically violates a law would be much worse.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see CNN busted as much as the next guy. But at what price?
Nice job, Countertop. My layman's response is the they certainly intended to commit the acts involved in the transaction. That they were ignorant of the law is a different question. Is ignorance of the law ever a positive defense?
Xrlq: I understand your concerns. My response is that CNN should pay the price. They've demonstrated they're willing to expend money and resources to further gun control. Let them expend some more. Will they defend their reporter? Their folly should be reflected in their balance sheet.
Xrlq - I am not confusing the two issues at all.
I fully understand that there does exist some discretion in which cases to prosecute. However, as reported at Michael Bane's site, thats not the reason the BATF has given for not prosecuting.
Rather, they alluded to the fact that no violation occurred because there was no intent to break the law, and therefor prosecution was unwarranted.
It is that position of the BATF that I called pure and utter bullshit.
In recent years, you would be hard pressed to find even a signle instance of a federal prosecutor employing even the slightest discretion when it comes to even the most inconsequential violation of federal gun laws (state prosecution is an entirely different story however) that for them to take this position now is simply amazing. Hence my statement that perhaps they will issue an opinion letter consistent with this new found position.
Some judge once remarked that the quickest way to get rid of bad law is to enforce it strictly.
Apparently CNN lied. There was no felony violation.
Countertop:
I'm afraid ATF is right. The statute requires "willful" conduct for a violation of 922(a)(3), unlike most other provisions of 922. In this particular case, intent apparently is an issue. I just did a post on this subject.
Actually, it requires "willful" violations of most 922 provisions, courtesy of the Firearm Owners Protection Act. The cases Countertop cites precede FOPA, and are therefore inapplicable now.
The cases Countertop cites precede FOPA, and are therefore inapplicable now.
What's the lesson here?
Don't put up a post at 2:00 am without first Shepardizing (link provided for the non legal readers).
However . . . . I still stand by what I wrote. While the statutory penalties may only apply to a "willful" violation of the act, the fact of the matter remains that a violation of the act can still occur absent any intent.
What that means I don't know - and frankly after the week I have had at work I don't have the brain power left to figure it out now, at 10:45 pm. However, I'll dwell on the issue and might (or might not) post something about it later.
More thoughts posted in comments over at my place.
Edited by Countertop to add - Go To Matt's Place
Oh, and I should add: Xrlq is right. "Willfully" is in fact the standard for most provisions of 922, at least according to the S.Ct. (I haven't tallied them up myself, but I'll take the Supremes' word for this one.) I should've said that "knowingly" is the standard for "some" or "many."
Commenting by HaloScan
