A gun dealer takes issue with city gun-control laws

[beevul]

A gun dealer takes issue with city gun-control laws
By Robert Moran

Inquirer Staff Writer

When Mayor Nutter signed five new gun-control measures, he invoked the spirit of 1776 and announced that the city was declaring its independence from the gun violence that has wracked Philadelphia.

Fred Delia, co-owner of Delia's Gun Shop in Wissinoming, had a different take.

He said the gun crackdown "sounds like the British are coming back."

With equal patriotic fervor, he declared that Nutter and City Council should be arrested for violating state law and a 1996 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said only the state legislature can regulate firearms.

Maybe hes just part of the "corrupt gun industry"?

Is this whole event not exactly the same thing that CA just went through?

[Tejas]

1. Nutter just boosted Delia's

and other dealer's sales, probably for a long time to come.

[Uben]

2. You want my guns?

Come and get em! But you better have a small army!

[Turbo Teg]

3. Yup. I bet he's gonna be raking in the dough.

Reminds me of a book I read called "Enemies, foriegn and Domestic". As soon as firearms we're banned, the gunstore owner sold out of everything! Hopefully the Mayor will be sued/arrested for breaking the law. I remember back when Ohio got concealed carry, the Sheriff of Franklin County (Jim Karnes) refused to sign concealed carry permits. Our state is a "Shall Issue" state, meaning that if we meet all the requirements, you have to give us a license. Anyway, I don't know if they sued him, or just threatend, but the Sheriff started signing. Hmmm, good prinicple for the sheriff, follow only the laws you like. The sheriff still won't sign off on any NFA weapons like Machine guns or silencers, but we still get around that, so it's not even a bother. Hopefully it irks the shxt out of him knowing he can't stop it.

[iverglas]

4. "Maybe hes just part of the 'corrupt gun industry'?"

From the little I see, he seems like a reasonable and decent person.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0293P.pdf

Defendant Tony Soto was convicted following a jury trial on the four counts of aiding and abetting the making of a false statement to a federal firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. ...

... Fred Delia testified that he is the owner of Delia’s Gun Shop and a federal firearms licensee. When a customer makes a purchase of a firearm, he must get a copy of a Pennsylvania issued ID and record the information on a Form 4473. Question A 1 on the Form states: “Are you the actual buyer of the firearms listed on this form?” ... The transactions involving Defendant Soto aroused Delia’s suspicion because Soto, Theresa Brown and the juvenile that accompanied them arrived in a taxi cab; and Brown, the person who signed as the actual purchaser, did not appear to know what she was doing as far as the guns were concerned.

... Prior to the April 6 sale, Delia had contacted the ATF because he was suspicious about Brown. He called Philadelphia Police Officer Paul Sawicki and told him that Brown was about to come back in again to purchase another weapon. ...

This always reminds me of the Law&Order episode where conviction of a murderer hinges on the testimony of an eyewitness -- who, if he testifies, exposes himself to cross-examination in which he will have to admit his (trivial) role in a bookie operation, thus exposing himself to conviction and also to retribution from the organization.

He invokes the 5th amendment on cross-examination. The jury is instructed to ignore everything he said. He starts to walk away and realizes that the murderer is seconds away from getting off, because the charge is going to be dismissed for want of evidence. He turns around and says he wants to answer the questions. His testimony leads to a conviction. And one of the DA types says to the other how he can never get over how the entire justice system depends on people like that guy, or words to that effect.

So -- what I can't get over is why anyone would want the protection of the public against people like the ones in that case to depend on the goodwill of a Fred Delia -- or on others who may not be quite so conscientious or not manage to see quite such a blatant violation of the law -- when there are so much better ways of achieving the goal. Protecting the public.

[bossy22]

5. cause thats how the justice system works

"So -- what I can't get over is why anyone would want the protection of the public against people like the ones in that case to depend on the goodwill of a Fred Delia -- or on others who may not be quite so conscientious or not manage to see quite such a blatant violation of the law -- when there are so much better ways of achieving the goal. Protecting the public."

thats how the mob got around things for a lont time- witness intimidation

but what i don't get is what you are asking for....a change in the justice system that allows for public protection? Well there is one thing that comes to mind- changing the statute from innocent till proven guilty, to guilty till proven innocent- that would probably get the desired result- but i am deathly against that

protection of the public can also be done through getting rid of the jury system- you can set up a tribunal made up of a police chief and 4 judges who will decide all cases based on evidence in front of them- that would also probably protect the public

Protecting the public- the Patriot Act protects the public, Warrantless wiretaps protect the public

[iverglas]

6. I really have no clue what you think you're talking about

Seriously. But maybe we can get you back on track. I said:

So -- what I can't get over is why anyone would want the protection of the public against people like the ones in that case to depend on the goodwill of a Fred Delia <*> -- or on others who may not be quite so conscientious or not manage to see quite such a blatant violation of the law -- when there are so much better ways of achieving the goal. Protecting the public.

<*> where what I am plainly talking about is his "goodwill" as in being a "good citizen" and reporting suspicious firearms transactions to the authorities and/or refusing to complete suspicious firearms transactions.

Could he have been prosecuted for completing the transactions described in that decision? I would doubt it. So what's his incentive not to complete such transactions?

In his case, it might be called "a conscience". It could just be fear of getting caught -- but in that case all he had to do was decline the purchase and leave it at that.

Why would anyone want to rely on a stranger's conscience, or fear of getting caught, as the best way of protecting the public against firearms getting into the hands of people like the ones in that case?


but what i don't get is what you are asking for.

I'm not asking for anything. That might have been a nice try, I dunno. Not my laws. All I do is analyze and critique them and question people's reasons for supporting them. Not my job to ask for anything.

What I don't understand is why anyone would wnat to rely on the conscience/fears of a stranger when there are such better ways of reducing the risk of firearms getting into the hands of people like the ones in that case.

If his customers needed a licence to acquire firearms, and if the purchase of the firearm was permanently registered in a database held by an official body, Mr. Delia wouldn't have to spend his time figuring out whether they're trying to engage in a straw purchase. He would look at the licence, he would ensure that his transfer of the firearm registered to him was properly recorded ... and he'd find that a whole lot fewer people would be trying to make straw purchases from him. Not out of conscience, but out of fear of getting caught, undoubtedly.

Yeah, still relying on somebody's fear of getting caught. But in that case, it's people who have qualified for a licence, and had their firearm purchase registered, who are the ones afraid of getting caught if they traffic the firearm on to an ineligible purchaser. Kind of a smaller and more reliable pool of people than the ones Mr. Delia likely deals with, and a whole lot more hurdles to be got over before even reaching that point.


There ya go. Take a kick at it now.

[Tejas]

7. "no clue"...........so let's accuse!

Though you may belittle the dealer's actions as a drop in the bucket, it counts.



"Could he have been prosecuted for completing the transactions described in that decision? I would doubt it. So what's his incentive not to complete such transactions?

In his case, it might be called "a conscience". It could just be fear of getting caught -- but in that case all he had to do was decline the purchase and leave it at that."


Always grasping for that straw......

[iverglas]

8. grasp that straw hard

and think of things to do with it.

Yes, you're right. It is entirely reasonable and decent to pretend that what I said could be interpreted the way you interpret it. Especially when the very first thing I said in this discussion was:

From the little I see, he seems
like a reasonable and decent person.

Very first thing I said. Nothing I have said since has contradicted that, i.e. expressed any different opinion. So why any reasonable, decent person WOULDN'T think it obvious that I was saying the complete fucking opposite -- why I just wouldn't know.

Maybe I can find a reasonable, decent person who thinks it's obvious I was saying the complete fucking opposite, and ask him/her to explain how s/he reached that conclusion ...


You say:

In his case, it might be called "a conscience". It could just be fear of getting caught -- but in that case all he had to do was decline the purchase and leave it at that."

Always grasping for that straw......

Some impairment must be at work here, but maybe I can help you:

In his case, it might be called "a conscience". It could just be fear of getting caught -- but in that case all he had to do was decline the purchase and leave it at that. (You do realize he DIDN'T just decline the purchase and leave it at that, right? You do realize he reported the suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities, and participated in their investigation, and testified in their case?)

Always grasping for that straw. Even when it isn't there, in your case.

[Tejas]

9. why the avoidance?

"It could just be fear of getting caught"

Hey, you suggested it, but evidently don't care to answer for your negativity.


(no surprise here folks, move along)

[iverglas]

10. the usual

If I believed you were this stupid, I would weep for you.

I don't believe you are this stupid, so I weep for humanity.