No charges for seller who sold gun to W.Va. killer

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

No charges for seller who sold gun to W.Va. killer
By MATT STROUD, Associated Press | December 8, 2014 | Updated: December 8, 2014 2:47pm

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) — An ex-convict who killed four people last week purchased the weapon used in the shootings online from another West Virginian.

A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says 39-year-old Jody Lee Hunt of Westover purchased the firearm about a year ago.

George Huffman says ATF traced Hunt's gun to a Monongalia County resident who sold Hunt the gun via Facebook.

Hunt was barred from purchasing or carrying a firearm because he was a convicted felon with criminal records in West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Huffman says the seller will not be charged.

Police say Hunt killed 45-year-old Douglas Brady, 43-year-old Jody Taylor, 28-year-old Michael Frum and 39-year-old Sharon Berkshire on the morning of Dec. 1. Hunt was later found dead in his truck, apparently a suicide.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/No-charges-for-seller-who-sold-gun-to-W-Va-killer-5943188.php

---

(Short article, no more at link.)

[Clint0n]

1. no background check necessary for a person to person sale in WV

its called the gun show loophole for a reason

[Duckhunter935]

2. was not at a gun show

it is not a loophole. It is a standard intrastate sale not covered by federal law but under state law. States can and some do require background checks.

[brentspeak]

9. The term "gun show loophole"

refers to any and all person-to-person firearms transactions which don't require the federal background check, whether the purchase occurs at a gun show or through a classified ad or through an advertisement posted on a supermarket's bulletin board. Hence, the killer's purchase of his guns from someone over Facebook falls firmly under the category of the "gun show loophole".

"States can and some do require background checks."

Which has snot to do with this particular tragedy, taking place in West Virginia, a state which doesn't require background checks for person-to-person firearms transactions?

[malokvale77]

10. No response?

I'm not surprised.

[beevul]

75. Why wasn't it named the "private sale" loophole? n/t

[Recursion]

82. I think the complaint is about the term "gun show"

The "loophole" has nothing in particular to do with gun shows.

[Hoyt]

31. Responsible gun owners would have paid an FFL to handle background check and transfer,

whether or not required by lax gun laws.. You guys can't keep ducking the responsibilities we should demand from gun cultists.

[LynnTTT]

55. Sure the seller could, bur

why would they when there is no penalty?

[Hoyt]

56. That's the problem with the law, and the problem with gun owners. They don't give a darn.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. States can close this. OR, the federal government can open up NICS so private sellers

who sell to friends/family/co-workers can access NICS themselves, instead of forcing them to go find and pay a FFL to do the transfer.

Either solution would work.

[Hoyt]

32. Gun owners can do it through an FFL right now. Not a good idea to open it to public.

There are record keeping requirements and accountability aspects that your average gun yahoo isn't likely to handle. Plus, do we want anyone checking under the guise of doing a gun transfer. While it's just a pass/fail type thing, it could easily be abused.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. No, there are only record keeping requirements from a dealer.

That's an entirely separate issue from ensuring a background check to eliminate ineligible purchasers.

[Hoyt]

35. An FFL has to keep records. Your average yahoo selling a gun in a parking lot, isn't

likely to do that.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. The average yahoo in a parking lot isn't required to do that.

Regardless of a background check.

Background checks and transfer paperwork are separate issues.

[Hoyt]

48. That's why it needs to go through FFL. We're going around in circles, I think I'll get off.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Well, they aren't going to open up NICS, so on that, we agree. It'll have to go through an FFL.

[snooper2]

51. you don't like merrry-go-rounds?

[hack89]

42. Private sellers are not FFLs

Even where UBCs are law.

[Hoyt]

50. I fully realize that. So take your gun to FFL to record transfer. Is that too much to ask so-called

"responsible gun owners."

If one doesn't have to keep confirmation/records of a background check, most of the gun yahoos I've known won't do it. They'll take the fistful of cash, and as one recently said on the Discussionist, "after I sell someone my gun, I don't care what they do with it." So much for the "responsible gun owner" myth.

[hack89]

52. UBCs are the law where I live.

yours is a reasonable approach but in the context of the OP, you can't charge someone for breaking a non-existing law. That's all. If you want to prevent it from happening in the future then you need to get all 50 states to pass UBC laws. Not complicated.

[Hoyt]

53. I realize the guy who sold the gun can't be charged, legally. Morally, it's another question.

Maybe a civil suit would be cool. We can watch the NRA jump into action and Republicans pass laws to protect gun owners.

Hack, you have been most reasonable lately. Wish all gun owners were the same.

[Adrahil]

74. Agreed.

I think if the NICS were free to use by private citizens, a lot of people would use it.

[Skittles]

33. should be called gun humper loophole

[AnalystInParadise]

91. That's very helpful

Glad you are not part of our outreach efforts.

[Skittles]

92. LOL

amazing what bothers them and what does not

[AnalystInParadise]

93. I know right

impugning an entire group of people is SOOOOOOOOOO progressive of you.

[Demsrule86]

72. If it was sold on facebook

He can be charged federally.

[kelly1mm]

78. What federal law was broken? He sold it from one WV resident to another WV resident. nt

[GGJohn]

80. If it was sold within state, then no federal law was broken.

[FBaggins]

3. Why would there be?

How is a private individual supposed to even know that someone else is a felon?

The law just says that he can't knowingly sell the gun to someone who can't legally own it.

Now... if he's really a commercial seller claiming to be a "hobbyist" just to avoid background restrictions (but actually sells hundreds of guns a year)... that would be different.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Reason to suspect.

If he had testified/confessed that he had some reason to suspect this guy couldn't have obtained a gun through normal channels, then he might have been exposed to prosecution.

'Hey man, thanks for doing this. I have this bullshit DV charge that was dismissed when I was a teen, that I didn't contest, so I can't buy one in a store'

That sort of shit.

[csziggy]

8. I'm not sure if it is the law anywhere but I have read about ways to do background checks

For private gun sales. Essentially, the buyer and seller would have to go to a licensed gun shop and pay a fee for them to do the background check. Until the buyer is cleared for purchase the gun would not be turned over to them.

If we want background checks for gun owners, there should be no loopholes. ALL gun sales should be subject to background checks, not just those through dealers.

[benEzra]

12. Here in NC,

you can ask to see the buyer's carry license (if they have one, they've passed multiple checks). That's true of most states. For those without carry licenses, I suppose you could run a background check like employers do, but it's pricey.

NC does require a background check for all handgun purchases, but the check is conducted by the sheriff's department for $5, at which time the person undergoing the check gets a purchase permit that is good for a specified period of time. It evolved from a Jim Crow scheme, but at least now it is de facto shall-issue. If there are going to be checks on private sales, I think that is the most practical way to do them, rather than forcing all sales through gun stores.

[csziggy]

15. I realized that there could be checks through law enforcement

But had gotten away from the message and was off doing real life things. If the buyer and/or seller have a choice between any licensed gun shop or law enforcement agency, that would give everyone flexibility.

The problem is too many don't believe there should be any restriction on gun sales. The way things are going, sane people might be changing their minds on this!

[benEzra]

44. The biggest problem we tend to have

with "background check" legislation is that too often, it goes waaaaaaay beyond background checks. For example, Manchin-Toomey made it a crime to lend your significant other a gun unless you were married, including simply leaving the gun at home if you were traveling out of town more than a week, as I recall. Washington's i594 is a steaming mess that makes it a felony to let a friend who has already passed a background check to so much as touch your gun outside of a commercial shooting range, and all transfers have to go through commercial dealers to be registered via BATFE Form 4473, among other things. That was a bait-and-switch.

I'm not opposed to background checks for private sales, in principle. I am deeply opposed to registration, and to intentional inconvenience such as requiring tranfers to go through gun stores, or making the background check as expensive and inconvenient as possible. A lot of those things are intended to simply discourage unregistered gun sales, background check or not. And given the fact that there is still a powerful, extremely well funded lobby trying to outlaw the most popular civilian guns in this country, de facto registration is an absolute dealbreaker.

[malokvale77]

11. If I know them well enough to sell them a gun...

I should know them well enough to not.

[nomorenomore08]

18. So why not require background checks on *all* transactions?

(Though I acknowledge he may have done nothing wrong under current law.)

[Recursion]

83. Manchin proposed that but Feinstein sucked out all the oxygen out of the debate

by trying to resurrect the AWB.

[mikeysnot]

6. Yeah for bullshit loopholes!

Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.

[ManiacJoe]

13. Not a loop hole, but a explicit exemption.

Private sellers are prohibited by law from using the NICS system to do background checks.

I would love to hear the reasoning for not charging the seller for the illegal sale. Willful ignorance of the buyer's status is not a valid legal defense, but most DAs allow it.

[nomorenomore08]

19. Then perhaps said exemption shouldn't exist. n/t

[ManiacJoe]

37. That is what the pro-gun folks keep saying.

[madville]

25. The seller didn't break any law

And private sellers are not allowed to use the background check system. What should the seller have been charged with if he was unaware of the buyers history?

[ManiacJoe]

38. He should be charged with selling to an ineligable buyer.

What did the seller do to attempt to verify the buyer's status? Nothing = willful ignorance, which should not be a valid defense.

A common way for sellers to verify the status of strangers is to see their concealed carry license. Otherwise sell to the folks who you know.

[hack89]

47. Doesn't work that way

you can't specifically deny private gun sellers access to the only system used to check eligibility to buy a gun and then hammer them if they sell a gun to an ineligible buyer.

As for the concealed carry licenses, they are not common. You also don't need one if all you want to own are rifles or shotguns.

A better idea might be a firearms owner ID card but that requires each state to act.

[ManiacJoe]

57. I agree that it currently does not work that way.

[Adrahil]

79. Without access to NICS, the seller doesn't know who is and is not eligible.

If NICS were available, then the seller could be held responsible for verifying the buyer's eligibility. Until then, they cannot.

[ManiacJoe]

81. NICS is one way, but not the only way.

There is also concealed weapons permits and other IDs that require background checks.
There is also knowing your buyer.

But, yes, having NICS available to everyone would be a great idea.

[hack89]

17. Wayne says thanks for your reasoned response. Nt

[NYC_SKP]

30. Has a penis reference been made yet?

There's always a penis reference.

[hack89]

41. Made and defended. Nt

[NYC_SKP]

46. DEFEND THE PENIS!!!

Cold dead hands, and all that!

DEFEND!

[mikeysnot]

43. Someone has to say it...

[hack89]

45. And Wayne was hoping you would say it exactly the way you said it. nt

[mikeysnot]

59. oohhhwwwwhhwhw

wwhahahahh, scary wayne... booohhahaahahahahhazaaaa. Just ANother stuPid Gunnnnzzzz Nut!

[hack89]

61. Childish and immature opponents are the best

There are good reasons gun control is a smoking wreck in America. Look in the mirror for one of them.

[mikeysnot]

62. So republican

Projection, denial and a feeling of self importance...


So how long did it take you to develop this fantasy world you live in?

Not that I care.

I posted the numbers, the only side you are is on the wrong... Oh and repilicants....

[hack89]

63. You denying the gun control movement is weak and impotent?

You still have to regain the ground you have lost after your last "victory" ie the 94 AWB. If not for the financial support of a certain republican billionaire it would be non-existent.

Talk about a denial and projection.

[mikeysnot]

64. Wow, projecting again...

and you accuse me of it. Six corporations control our airwaves, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[hack89]

65. Do you really believe there is wide popular support for strict gun control?

if so, I think it is time to show some evidence. Because in the real world it is not happening.

[mikeysnot]

66. And yet another logical fallacy from you...

Arguing in circles.

I already showed the results in several posts, explained them in others, and now your back to where we started....

Here more of your peeps...

Solving problems with GUUUNNNZZZZZZ!

http://aattp.org/high-school-counselor-threatens-icantbreathe-protesters-ill-shoot-every-one-of-them/


I sure this guy doesn't fall into the "Mentally Ill" gun owner category....

[hack89]

67. No - I made a bald assertion reflected in reality

that there is no wide public support for strict gun control

You post about a woman who made an idiotic tweet (it is not even certain she has a gun). If that is the best you can do then I think you are making my point for me.

[mikeysnot]

68. So how long did it take for you to create this fantasy world you live in?

Just because you do not see or hear about gun control movements does not mean it does not exist.

Do you really think the 6 corporations that own our media that make tons of $$$$ off of war and guns everywhere would present anti-gun and gun control groups in a realistic light?

Did you see this on tv last June?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/moms-demand-action-guns-madd-shannon-watts-nra


N0, but I am sure you saw the deadbeats at the Bundy ranch. I bet you saw the fake-triot ammo-sexuals at the Kroger and Target...

And I posted a hell lot more than an "idiot that tweeted something"....

[hack89]

69. Shannon Watts is an ex Monsanto PR flack financed by a Republican billionaire

not the best example of a grass roots movement.

I did actually see her on TV. Saw the idiots at Bundy's ranch on TV too. All the open carry stories have been either neutral or negative.

[mikeysnot]

70. Moving the goal posts you are!

I said nothing of "grass roots" being a qualifier. Oh and yet another logical fallacy from you... attacking the messenger.

I find you're overt support for Republican policies on a Democratic site disturbing.

[hack89]

71. I guess "effective" is not a appropriate qualifier either

I said there is no effective gun control movement in America. The lack of accomplishments is proof of that.

The Democratic Party platform says that the 2A protects an individual right. Sounds good to me.

[mikeysnot]

87. Give it time.

When a couple more of your peeps of low lying fruit pop again and kill innocents, it is another chance to regain the momentum again.

Luckily for the gun fanatics, large multinational corporations control our airwaves and keep these issues off the burner. It is lack of media coverage that keeps these movements down, not some asshole politician or gun nut walking around kroger like a fucking dork with his assault rifle.... if you have to strap heat to go shopping, you are a coward.

[hack89]

88. As our murder rate continues its 20 year decline

I suspect the opposite will happen. Gun control depends on whipping up moral panic. You count on the American public being too stupid to understand what is really happening.

[mikeysnot]

89. What do you live on this site? I just posted that.

The 20 year murder rate going down has nothing to do with guns or people having guns.... I see you peddling this BS on other threads it is just another of the logical fallacies you employ on a regular basis...

"Gun control depends on whipping up moral panic."

You just pulled that BS from the buerue of your butt. You have it opposite of reality... again.

I should just cut and paste this every time you post.... save me some time.

[shedevil69taz]

77. Moms demand action...

like to try and sell themselves as a "grass roots" organization though...

[mikeysnot]

85. So being "true " grass roots?

Means what exactly.

ad hominem Attacks.

[beevul]

76. Gun banning shannon watts?

At least you made it known you're squarely in the gun ban camp, cheerleading for watts like you do.

[mikeysnot]

86. Believe what you want...

Obviously reality plays not in what you think...

[beevul]

90. I believe her when she says...

I believe her when she says:




Do you?

Set us strait on this:

Should we, or should we not believe Shannon watts? That isn't a hard question to answer.

[ileus]

7. I ask for a CHP and bill of sale for my FB gun deals.

Some folks don't like my "requirement" to see a CHP, but that's okay it's my way of trying to weed out the shady characters.

[nomorenomore08]

20. Thanks for being a responsible gun dealer.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Not a great solution.

The CHP/CPL could be revoked for a period of years, before you look at it.

Nothing is more up to date than NICS. It needs to be available one way or another.

[onehandle]

14. Of course. Guns are the Jesus of the Right.

Impotency drives gun nuttery.

[hack89]

16. So every gun owner is impotent?

Or just a small minority?

[nomorenomore08]

21. All, or the majority? Of course not. But some do seem to be trying to compensate for something.

Especially those who wave huge guns around in public.

[hack89]

22. Have you ever considered that your arm flapping angst over guns

Might be sufficient motivation for some gun owners?

[nomorenomore08]

23. Mine? I have no problem with gun ownership. Though I would like to see universal background checks

for all gun sales, including person-to-person.

Not to mention that "arm flapping angst" is a poor excuse for trying to intimidate people with an AR-15. And those are the particular gun owners I was referring to - I realize they're a distinct minority.

[hack89]

24. I am with you on UBCs - my state has them and they work well

And I don't actually support open carry in most cases - it upsets too many people. I just get tired of the constant guns = penis crap - it is childish and adds nothing of substance to the conversation.

[Duckhunter935]

26. and they never say

small minority until called on it. Notice how they never put that part in the original posting.

[crim son]

94. Laughing.

And you call we anti-gun people "immature"! At least we whining children aren't openly brandishing deadly weapons at the same time as we threaten to kill anybody who opposes our right to carry. SMH. I'm going to stand by my small dick theory.

[hack89]

96. I don't carry in public

And have never threatened to kill anybody over my rights. No need to - President Obama and the Dem leadership has been very good to gun owners.

As for the penis issue, you can take it up with my wife and daughter (both gun owners and enthusiastic shooters).

[Skittles]

39. careful

tens of thousands of senseless deaths are A-OK but they find penis analogies VERY UPSETTING

[hack89]

40. Not upsetting - kind of reassuring in a way

Childish and immature opponents are the easiest one to overcome - there are good reasons gun control advocates are on a 20 year losing streak. Their grade school demeanor and insults are some of them.

[stone space]

27. "Happiness is a warm gun"

[nomorenomore08]

28. "It was [from] a gun magazine. I just thought it was a fantastic, insane thing to say.

A warm gun means you just shot something."

- John Lennon

[librechik]

54. everything working perfectly, just as planned…n/t

[hollowdweller]

58. In an ideal situation

Every gun would have a title like a car.

Before the transfer went thru the paperwork would have to be filled out and sent in and then the seller could sell to the buyer.

During that time a criminal background check would be completed.

However at this point people are convinced that if we had a situation where every gun had a title that the government could come in and confiscate their guns later on if the law changed. It's not entirely without precedent either.

I really thought the Heller decision would have paved the way for something like the above, since with the right to own guns guaranteed by law there would be no reason to be afraid of a gun having a title.

However the decision was so ambiguously written that it allows for the NRA to keep on fundraising on the registration leads to confiscation meme. Maybe that was the intention. Why kill the cash cow??

I live in WV and my old neighbor who had done time for attempted murder owned a gun and used to poach deer all the time. He couldn't own a gun legally. He went back to prison though.

What I found disturbing about the whole thing, rather than how he got is gun, was the guy had actually taken another GF hostage, had to be talked out by law enforcement several years earlier and the guy only did 3 years!!!! I know people who have sold prescription drugs who did more time than that!!!

[branford]

60. As you note, there is precedent for government confiscation after registration.

Some of theses issues are as recent as matters in New York State within the last year or two where bureaucrats have scoured medical records and other government lists in an attempt to identify guns for confiscation, and then manage to still improperly take away the firearms of lawful gun owners.

If confiscation concerns are legitimate, no less actively supported by many gun control proponents, why would gun rights advocates ever support registration?

[olddots]

73. OK you are selling a gun to a stranger

a total stranger ,you may be a good guy and they may be a bad guy .

The odds are always shitty when guns are involved ....people want to be suckers .

[Recursion]

84. And yet our party spends more energy banning bayonet lugs and regulating rifles' grip shape

than we do pushing for something that even as conservative a Democrat as Manchin sponsored, universal background checks.

[seveneyes]

95. bayonet lugs and rifle grips can be used as grapeshot

With one whiff of such, one may never forget, or remember.