Gunman killed neighbors, child with AR-15-style rifle, sheriff says

Well its unfortunate that the law doesn't comply with your belief system.
This was an obama era decision, carried through by trump and still used by biden.
You sell too many for profit without some form of reinvestment (say you buy guns cheap when you see them and flip them for profit as a way of making additional income), they consider you to be :"engaged in the business" IE commerce IE oi u got a loicense for that mate?
https://www.nssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/NSSF-factsheet-Engagedinthebusiness.pdf
https://www.atf.gov/file/55456/download

Yeah dude its not a literal hole for shooting arrows out of. You'll find many terms to be used for their easy meme-like understanding with average lay persons who tend to have just a bit more brain power than your average dog.
Non-liquet is itself a euphemistic term meaning equating to not clear.
People barely grasp english most days, expecting them to learn latin is a fools errand.

The resistance to the term is silly. Its an intentional carve out from the normal status, for the express purpose of preventing what it supposed to help from hindering those under the law IE the common citizenry.
It doesn't do a great job, as the ffl system itself is unconstitutional despite carve outs, and most states don't have the carve out to protect their populace, but its at least trying and that's nice to note.

 

Man accused of shooting deaths of 5 neighbors in Texas arrested (msnbc.com)
Officials have arrested Francisco Oropesa, the man accused of shooting and killing five of his neighbors with an AR-15 rifle in their Texas home.

He was hiding in a closet under dirty laundry.

 

Currently, the term “dealer” is
defined at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11)(A)
to include any person “engaged in
the business” of selling firearms at
wholesale or retail. According to the
ATF:
The term “engaged in the business,”
as applicable to a firearms dealer,
is defined as a person who devotes
time, attention, and labor to dealing
in firearms as a regular course of
trade or business with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit
through the repetitive purchase
and resale of firearms, but such
term shall not include a person
who makes occasional sales,
exchanges, or purchases of firearms
for the enhancement of a personal
collection or for a hobby, or who sells
all or part of his personal collection
of firearms. 27 CFR 478.11

By the sound of things that "too many" is quite a lot, and involves a business of some sort.
It also excludes people selling from their personal collection.
Does the NICS have a provision non-FFL holders to use it? I don't think so, but maybe.
To use the e-check you DO need a FFL#
If you don't have a FFL and cannot access the NICS, how do you comply?

Sorry - I thought you'd want to be precise.

Not if the alternative is to allow the other side to establish a false narrative, as you described.

 

AR-15s are no more lethal than any other firearm.

 

Pass. But, you go ahead.

 

which is both illegal and WORTHLESS as you know.

 

You really got to read the links amigo. It will help you understand the position of the authoritarian government agency who is dictating the law be changed because reasons.
I'm not saying they're right to do so, I'm saying that's what they did.
A regular course can be very few instances. You go to a show 3 months running, set up a little table and arbitrage deals you spot? This guy selling for $250 a gun that you could sell for $350 you pick up the profit at the show etc. That's a cooked turkey there dude.
You know the whole 3 felonies a day thing? This is one of the big ones.

I'm not saying privates can use nics. You have to have an ffl, which most people don't because they are onerous and burdensome to comply with even for a squared away paperwork pro.
Their intent with this is to get privates who do this to GET an ffl or at least a C&R.

I was being precise. You're using a term of art incorrectly. Non-liquet refers to unclear EVIDENCE, originally (as a term from roman law for a case that must be dismissed for lacking its proper foundation). The term you want for a gap in law is a 'lacuna'.
A case can be non-liquet IE lacking its predicates, if there is a gap in the law IE a 'lacuna'.
But a lacuna is not non-liquet.
Lay people grasp 'loophole', and there is nothing wrong with using the term. A loophole is a good thing, done intentionally to allow exactly the behavior you find.
Allowing them to represent it as something bad, and trying to introduce latin terms that generally speak to the same concept, is silly and allowing your opponent to dictate the argument.

As with the 'weapon of war' thing: The answer is "that's not a bad thing, who cares"

 

All of this is a orchestrated segue into an assault "weapon" ban and then claim hundreds of guns including many popular handguns are assault weapons.

The same advertising techniques that were developed to market products, as shown in the series Mad Men, have now been combined with newer perception management and information warfare technology to attempt to disarn the American citizens. The constant use of "AR-15" establishes a brand, if you will.

 

So what should be done ?

How do we stop people from committing suicide and taking several bystanders with them?

 

And every time they say "its more lethal" and you fight them that its not, you give in to the narrative that if it WERE more lethal they'd have a point.

You turn that on its head by saying: Let's assume its more lethal, though I disagree with you. If it were, I have a right to have just that sort of thing. The more lethal you make it, the more a right I have to it.
Same with a weapon of war argument: Its not, but let's stipulate it is arguendo. So what? I have a right to such things.

 

You encourage people to narc their family members out when they start doing **** like torturing animals or stalking people etc.
Then we go back to funding insane asylums and we put people in them. Likewise, when you have them dead to rights on a big deal felony, you put them in and you keep them in.

 

I understand your point. But I am not making the argument that an AR-15 it is more or less lethal than anything else. Rather, my argument/issue is that the left has a goal of total disarmament for the average citizen and the AR-15 business is just branding for their campaign.

 

you cannot because the only thing available in a free society when dealing with people who have no records, is a threat of punishment. Of course if a person does things that justify intervention prior to the act, that can be done. but many of those incidents are not ones that had a predicating course of action

 

when has that ever been possible?

 

Right and I'm saying when you allow them to set the argument to quibbling over details, you make it seem like they might have a point.
Instead, a proper response is to basically call them a regard and point out why they are so highly regarded.

 

No you don'r. and I don't think anyone ever did,,2nd or not Not past 1200' anyway

We haven't had Thompsons since the mid 30s, Whers the NRA?

Why and how?

 

This is, in every literal and figurative way, a weapon of war.
I, unarguably, have a right to own and use it for lawful purposes, and that right is unarguably protected by the 2nd.
You cannot be more wrong - though you will try.

 

Yes, I do.

https://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/thompson?sz=800x600
You don't say? How are these people selling and possessing them?

Being feckless as per usual. The NRA isn't a gun rights org anymore and hasn't been for awhile. Talk as much **** about them as you like, you won't top me talking **** about them.
Still, there are numerous lawsuits open post NYSRPA V BRUEN attacking all parts of the NFA.