In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short

Burst away bunky.

Do you really think that the soldier practicing to kill is any different than you practicing to kill. Of course a civillan would neverpractice killing a person. Or would they...

 

Of course it's intelligible and what I have been telling you all along and because I wrote it. You lack the ability to understand what even you write LOL never mind making a lucid point
in·tel·li·gi·ble
/inˈtelijəbəl/
Adjective
1.Able to be understood; comprehensible.
2.Able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses.
Synonyms
comprehensible - understandable - clear - lucid

You provided proof soldiers (the users) intend to use a piece of equipment DESIGNED to propel a spherical object at high speed for a purpose that military folks are trained to do however you failed to prove a weapon was designed to kill. Keep flinging Dado alex

I have no idea how this unintelligible phrase applies but please you must do much better at trying to insult people on an intellectual level

OH Yes I am buster.

 

Actually, the definition of felony varies slightly from state to state. In my state, it is defined as a crime for which the offender can possibly be sentenced to be imprisoned at hard labor or death.

And the last statement is absolute hogwash. While a crime requiring proof of intent does require the prosecutor to prove what the offender knew, or should have known (constructive knowledge) when he committed the act, it is not anywhere near impossible to prove, e.g. an offender knows he was convicted of a felony if he was in court when the adjudication was made or sentence was passed, etc.

 

1. The form doesn't include only felonies. ANY crime for which you COULD be sentenced to more than one year.

2. The prosecutor has to prove state of mind when the form was signed. No expert witnesses present, no one to testify as the mental condition, physical condition, drunk,high, delusional. And no requirement for the defendant to testify. As I said, it is a near impossible task. Reasonable doubt and all that.

Seriously, think about it.

A convicted felon who reads and understands the form well enough to know that signing it is a felony that could put him back in prison does so anyway so he can pay full retail for a firearm when he can go on the internet, find a gun for sale and buy it without that risk.

Have you guys really any experience at all with criminals? This thing falls into two categories. Unintentional because the criminal is just too dumb to know better or unintentional because the criminal is just too drunk, high, or disturbed to understand.

Anything beyond that falls into the .06% that get prosecuted.

 

It must be a scary world that you live in!

- - - Updated - - -

You have far too much time on your hands!

 

dodo i have degrees in criminal justice and everything yo have said is bs.
your thoery reads like this
your honor my client is not guilty of drunk driving because he was to drunk to know what he was doing is wrong. so he had no intent of breaking the law.
try that one and see what happens, that is what you are trying to say with your posts

 

My wife has a degree in criminal justice. She's not qualified to work at Wal Mart. If you'd paid attention in class you would have learned that it is the prosecution that must establish proof, not the defense.

But, I'm sure as a CJ major you know that.

 

missed this. really?

Do you call yourself "sailorman" because you like seamen?

 

Actually, loaning a gun to a friend would require a background check. (not so for brother, uncle or any relative from first cousin and closer). The exact language is transfer in the law. See Sec. 122 in the attached document.


http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

 

She work in the corrections department?

 

Well if she is not qualified to even work at Walmart, then that was a lot of money that went to waste. Are you always this complementary about your wife?

 

He does seem to have a problem with sentences. OH well I'm qualified to work at Wal-Mart....and I'm cute

 

define "friend?" Friend.

Define "loan". A day, week, month, until I want it back?

the word "loan" is not used in the bill nor is the word "friend."

Kindly be more specific.

- - - Updated - - -

No. that's below her skill level.

 

That's what i told her about CJ degrees.

She, like you, didn't listen to reason.

 

The proof is that they lied on the form. the defense has to try and and show he did not lie. Saying they where to drunk or drugged up is not a defense, you are still responsible for your actions just like a drunk driver..
Insanity defense very rarely works the DA has resources the counter that and the defense has to prove it.

 

Your degree serves you well.

To prove a lie it is necessary to prove state of mind, i.e., the person knew they were lying and not just misreading the form or misunderstanding the instructions.

So, absent a confession, prove state mind.

Got witnesses saying "he told me he was going to buy a gun illegally?"
Got a tape recording of the criminal stating he intended to do so?
Go a video of the store owner explaining form in detail including all of the relevant laws and obtaining an affirmative acknowledgement of understanding?

Yeah, that CJ degree path is a real winner ain't it?

 

maybe, just maybe, she's smarter than you...........maybe

 

Sorry you don to have to do any of that if you want to claim you where not of the right state of mind you have to prove that as part of your defense the DA does not.
These are very simple questions if you don't understand them you should not be signing them without asking someone. if you sign it then you are responsible. just like any contact. violate the contract you are responsible.
You have failed yet again in your lack of knowledge about the law.

 

Sure she is. After ll, she's got a CJ degree.

 

CJ degree got you again, huh?

" Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus)"

The prosecutor must prove intent. Without intent there is no crime and without the evidence mentioned previously it is difficult if not impossible to prove intent.

 

once again you have proven you have no clue. if you sign the contract willingly then that says you have understanding of that contract thus you have intent if you are not eligible. it is that simple. sorry that yo have no clue of the law.
you did have intent when you signed the contract your intent was to illegally buy a gun, if you try and use the psych defense that is called a affirmative defense you have to prove you where not capable of understanding. not the da
and ignorance of the law is not a defense.