A blatant double standard on background checks (long)

[friendly_iconoclast]

Two recent threads illustrate this

The first is a now-locked thread in GD about a clergyman who, with undoubtedly good intenions,
violated Oregon's new background check law.
(Disclosure: I held that he should be fined one dollar and court costs, and be sentenced
to writing a public letter of apology).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8120273

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028120273#post6

The story leaves out that he violated Oregons universal background check law

And was being called out as a giant hypocrite for pushing a gun control agenda while violating existing gun laws.

He is in Oregon, and Oregons UBC law makes virtually any transfer of a firearm, even temporary, a felony unless a background check and paperwork is done. He told reporters he gave the gun to a "responsible gun owner" in his congregation for safe keeping until he destroys it- a felony in that state. They did the proper checks to hand it off to him, and he promptly violated the law and transferred possession to someone else.

Opponents of the UBC law had been pushing the absurdity of the law criminalizing acts like that, so when a gun control advocate publicly admitted to breaking the law they demanded he be punished for the violation. And if he isn't it will show a double standard, if he is it will give great publicity to how idiotic it is to make it a felony to give a gun to a person who already has them so they can safely store it for you.

If you going to make a public stand for gun control and in doing so you violate existing gun laws you should expect full and well to be called out for your violations of the law and the glaring hypocrisy of demanding more laws when you can't even comply with existing laws when acting in good faith because they are so messed up.

Some did not feel that he should be prosecuted, sometimes vigorously:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028120273#post35

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028120273#post65

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028120273#post63

Most others simply avoided the awkward question.


The second is from the other gun group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211399

NRA official urges Mainers to reject background checks on gun sales

In it, an NRA spokesperson is quoted as saying, in part:

“Whether or not you own a gun, Question 3 will be a nightmare for all of you,” Cox said. “It will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight.”

To which the author of the OP replied:

Really? Turn law abiding citizens into criminals? How the hell does that work? Either you are law abiding or you're not. Get a background check and no problem, don't get one and you broke the law, ergo, not law abiding. Have I missed something here?

What alternative universe do these people live in? Oh, I forgot. Liburty and freedumb land. Only in a gunner's mind can this reasoning make sense.

The disinterested reader is invited to note the authorship of both...