Sixteen-year-old Vermonters and handguns

[Matt1970]

So, no one could find any instances of people arrested or convicted or sentences for selling a handgun privately to a 16 or 17 year old.

My point has now been completely proven.

I was wrong, you did post in here. You have either:

A. Big Balls
B. A small Brain
C. Both A and B

Well you would just ignore that too like you have ignored the links to Federal Law stating a 16 year old cannot own a handgun. In your mind a blogger from the Washington Posts trumps federal law. Fopr the record, here is the federal law which trumps all state laws.

§ 922. Unlawful acts
(x)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(3) This subsection does not apply to—
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile—
(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

 

[Matt1970]

Lets sum up where techs stands:

This
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-6-craziest-state-gun-laws/

is a more reliable source than this
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/...((18) ADJ USC):CITE AND (USC w/10 (922)):CITE


Dumbass.

 

[Incorruptible]

LOL, I knew he would just ignore the evidence he asked for and I gave him.

Typical dishonest, insecure person. All that matters is trying to "win" -- facts, reason and logic be damned.

Agree. He has been thoroughly destroyed throughout this thread and the the forum, why does he continue to post despite getting owned every time?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Dishonesty, deception, or trickery needn't be insecure, the recent "rocket launcher" thread being an example of that on the part of the press and police.

Didn't read that thread.

Just trying to understand people who stubbornly refuse to admit error about anything under any circumstances, no matter how obvious it is to everyone. I really think it boils down to insecurity, a feeling like they can't admit error because they wouldn't be able to deal with it.

I bet he won't even admit he was wrong when (not if) the Washington Post retracts its claims.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Didn't read that thread.

Just trying to understand people who stubbornly refuse to admit error about anything under any circumstances, no matter how obvious it is to everyone. I really think it boils down to insecurity, a feeling like they can't admit error because they wouldn't be able to deal with it.

I bet he won't even admit he was wrong when (not if) the Washington Post retracts its claims.

It's my opinion that one has only so much access to the core reasons why one acts as they do. You very well may be right, but motivations can range from stirring up trouble for amusement to the well established phenomena of perceptual bias, to outright hatred of anything contrary.

I expect that perceptual bias is the primary cause of what we see. I don't know if insecurity applies so much as inflexibility of intellect, viewing things not as a changing continuum to be contextually evaluated on a constant basis, but a view that all is based on fixed principles with axioms defining reality and not the reverse.

Yet again it may be a case of trolling for fun, and truth isn't needed for that. In either case the topic hardly matters to me, it's the purpose behind it. I know whats said at the surface, but the pattern speaks more to me, but again thats just how I measure things.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Here's a pamphlet from the ATF that once and for all proves techs signature inaccurate.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atf.gov%2Fpublications%2Fdownload%2Fi%2Fatf-i-5300-2.pdf&ei=Yh3iUOfLN5K02AWVwoCwDA&usg=AFQjCNGxWe0U-651C7SYEoVfpG90PoW1Aw&sig2=MdU6Ow6xSjlovz__QKp_YQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I

 

[Matt1970]

Here's a pamphlet from the ATF that once and for all proves techs signature inaccurate.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atf.gov%2Fpublications%2Fdownload%2Fi%2Fatf-i-5300-2.pdf&ei=Yh3iUOfLN5K02AWVwoCwDA&usg=AFQjCNGxWe0U-651C7SYEoVfpG90PoW1Aw&sig2=MdU6Ow6xSjlovz__QKp_YQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I

Irrelevant. In techs mind a blogger at the Washington Post is more reliable source than the ATF or Congress.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Irrelevant. In techs mind a blogger at the Washington Post is more reliable source than the ATF or Congress.

techs blew it off as he said the law in 1996 trumped CGA. If anyone took the time to read the pamphlet they would see it was released in 2004.

I sent an email to the ATF with a link to the Washington Post blog asking if the statement was factually correct. I will laugh when the ATF forces the Washington Post to remove the statement and post a correction.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Ironically, yesterday I took my family to see a movie, and there was a sign on the door saying you had to be at least 16 to see an R-rated movie. I can't figure out if this is some sort of state law or just the policy of this particular theater owner, but I found it amusing in light of this issue.

 

[BladeVenom]

I can't figure out if this is some sort of state law or just the policy of this particular theater owner, but I found it amusing in light of this issue.

Theater policy.

The government of Californian tried enforcing rating nonsense in video games but it was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association as it's protected by the First Amendment. The same would hold true of movies.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Thanks.

Having not heard back from Ezra Klein -- who is posting blog entries and thus not on vacation -- I have now forwarded the matter to the Washington Post ombudsman, Patrick Pexton.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks.

Having not heard back from Ezra Klein -- who is posting blog entries and thus not on vacation -- I have now forwarded the matter to the Washington Post ombudsman, Patrick Pexton.

I owe you an apology. I characterized you as a doctrinaire progressive, but I can see I was completely wrong. You hold interesting and thoughtful views without unreasonable allegiance to a particular ideology or party, and express them well. Thou art a complex man.

My apologies for falsely pigeonholing you. I'm glad you didn't leave P&N.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I owe you an apology. I characterized you as a doctrinaire progressive, but I can see I was completely wrong. You hold interesting and thoughtful views without unreasonable allegiance to a particular ideology or party, and express them well. Thou art a complex man.

My apologies for falsely pigeonholing you. I'm glad you didn't leave P&N.

What a surprisingly kind, decent and courageous thing to come across in a thread like this! Thanks very much for that, it is greatly appreciated.

For what it's worth, despite our clashes in the past, I feel the same way about you, at least most of the time.

Also a good illustration of the contrast in character between someone like werepossum, being willing to make an admission that broad and encompassing, and someone like techs, who can't even admit being wrong about a single factual issue.

Back on topic -- I did get a response from the Washington Post ombudsman, who said he would look into this, but I haven't heard anything back since.

 

[Incorruptible]

What a surprisingly kind, decent and courageous thing to come across in a thread like this! Thanks very much for that, it is greatly appreciated.

For what it's worth, despite our clashes in the past, I feel the same way about you, at least most of the time.

Also a good illustration of the contrast in character between someone like werepossum, being willing to make an admission that broad and encompassing, and someone like techs, who can't even admit being wrong about a single factual issue.

Back on topic -- I did get a response from the Washington Post ombudsman, who said he would look into this, but I haven't heard anything back since.

He has been wrong on pretty much every issue, Is the sig going to be taken down? I could imagine the outrage from members if I had a sig like that.

 

[schmedy]

I too am in VT, and as you should know Federal Law Trumps state law, so they can not buy a handgun legally, but can carry one. I carry now and then, but the crime rate is so low it is not necessary. Sad thing is, that in the places where it would help in the rest of the US most are illegal or impossible for the average person to CCW.

 

[DCal430]

I too am in VT, and as you should know Federal Law Trumps state law, so they can not buy a handgun legally, but can carry one. I carry now and then, but the crime rate is so low it is not necessary. Sad thing is, that in the places where it would help in the rest of the US most are illegal or impossible for the average person to CCW.

Federal law prohibits anyone under 18 from carrying except for raw exceptions.

 

[mect]

One of the funniest threads I have read for a long time.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

One of the funniest threads I have read for a long time.

It would be funny if his disinformation wasn't being spread all over the forum every day, and, no doubt, some people believing it.

 

[Incorruptible]

One of the funniest threads I have read for a long time.

Definitely, Excellent job by the OP on exposing that crap :thumbsup:

techs was totally destroyed yet he still decides to be ignorant and keep that signature, hopefully most people will be able to realize how full of crap he and the sig are

 

[HumblePie]

Federal law prohibits anyone under 18 from carrying except for raw exceptions.

This.

Now in VT, the cops may look the other way and not bust your balls and enforce the fed law, but that doesn't make it legal.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The signature has been changed. Not sure exactly when, but it no longer references the misinformation about 16 year olds buying handguns legally.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Thanks, hadn't noticed that.

Wonder what happened.

Efforts to correct the bogus blog entry continue.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm not giving up on this. Here's a summary of what's happened so far, as I just posted on my blog.

--

Blogs, Transparency, Accuracy and Communication

The knock on the “traditional media” has always been that they were old-fashioned, uncaring monoliths who didn’t care much about individual readers and were not very responsive. Weren’t bloggers supposed to be better in that regard?

On December 16th of last year, Dylan Mathews published this piece about guns. It contains a number of unverified and flatly inaccurate claims, most notably this one:

Vermont, however, stands out from the pack because it allows people as young as 16 to conceal carry without parental permission, as well as buy handguns. So a Vermont teenager aged 16 can’t legally go to an R-rated movie alone or join the military, but he can buy a handgun and carry it in his jeans and be completely within the limits of the law.
​

As a Vermonter, I was intrigued by this claim and spent a considerable amount of time researching it. And what I discovered, very clearly, is that while Vermont has no law prohibiting a 16-year-old from buying a gun, federal law prohibits any juvenile (defined as “under 18&#8243 from buying or owning a handgun. Therefore, the claim that “a Vermont teenager aged 16 can’t legally go to an R-rated movie alone or join the military, but he can buy a handgun and carry it in his jeans and be completely within the limits of the law” is false.

I gathered the terms that I found within the statutes and also corroborating evidence from the ATF website and sent it to Mathews on December 27th asking for a correction. I received no response.

On December 30th, I forwarded the information to Ezra Klein, who is in charge of Wonkblog. No response.

On January 2nd, I filed a complaint with the Washington Post ombudsman, Patrick Pexton. He replied the same day, saying “I’ll give this to the correction desk, it looks like you’re right from the evidence you present.” I was annoyed that the Wonkblog folks weren’t taking this seriously, but pleased that Pexton replied so quickly and so positively.

On January 3rd, I sent another email to Mathews. No response.

On January 5th, I sent a followup to Pexton, because the article hadn’t been changed and I saw no correction. No response.

On January 8th, I sent a followup request to Klein to look into the matter. No response.

On January 9th, I again emailed Pexton, who this time did reply, but basically said “I’m busy and I’ll get back to you”. I offered to help by again summarizing the relevant laws, guidelines, and even a couple of court cases of adults charged for selling handguns to a minor, which I forwarded to him the same day. He thanked me, and I haven’t heard back from him since.

Today is January 25th. I have not heard anything from anyone at the Washington Post in two weeks. The article is still in place, exactly as it was in December.

Shouldn’t the blogosphere be able to do better than this? If it can’t, isn’t it becoming what it always criticized?