ATF&E at Kingsland gun show

[Mikewood]

It is in my view.

The litmus test for this is really quite simple.
"produce the victim". Don't say society because society is "harmed" daily by things that are not crimes. Smoking for instance.
Worse There are also tens of thousands of crimes for things that cause no harm and erode liberty.
"speeding" or driving faster than a posted speed is a crime yet there is no body or injury.
Now reckless driving can be proven by injury to a party and punishment should be very harsh.

 

[Acera]

Also, I am fuzzy on what would be considered a victimless crime.. If it is a crime it should at some point have an effect on someone.

In support of Mikewood's point. I have always like the following view on victimless crime, by Mark Twain.

My body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm...it is I who suffers, not the state.

 

[M. Sage]

If it is a crime...... why should it not be prosecuted?
Also, I am fuzzy on what would be considered a victimless crime.. If it is a crime it should at some point have an effect on someone.

No, victimless crimes should not even be prosecuted. They shouldn't even be on the books, since they're not even really crimes. The proper term is malum prohibitum, which roughly translates to "bad because we said so". Real crimes, the ones with victims are malum in se; "bad in and of itself". Assault, murder, robbery, theft... You cannot argue that these are bad in and of themselves. These are malum in se, and these are crimes that have victims.

Another way of putting it is that malum prohibitum is a crime against the will of the state and nothing else. The reason the state doesn't want you doing that? It's usually capricious (things like owning a machine gun, or making guns in your workshop and selling them to your friends, or selling a spare kidney for a down payment on a house).

How can you tell if there is a victim? Simple - does this act directly harm someone? Not some butterfly effect or snowball effect. None of this, "but he might go do something..." No thought crime. No future crime.

Putting my fist into someone's nose is my action directly harming someone. Selling a rifle to someone that winds up using it to rob a convenience store? Does not directly harm anybody.

 

[M. Sage]

Really? Is illegally selling or possessing firearms really a "victimless" crime in your book?

Unless you have some inside knowledge on what happened at the show, you really can't make such broad assumptions!

Yes, show me the victim of a felon in possession. Show me the victim if I were to have an unlicensed suppressor, short barreled ______ or machine gun. Who is the victim of "unlawful possession"? There is none. Illegal sales? Same. The buyer may choose to use that illegally purchased firearm in a harmful manner. That is the crime.

I can make broad assumptions because easily 90% of firearms laws at all levels are completely victimless.

 

[M. Sage]

The litmus test for this is really quite simple.
"produce the victim". Don't say society because society is "harmed" daily by things that are not crimes. Smoking for instance.
Worse There are also tens of thousands of crimes for things that cause no harm and erode liberty.
"speeding" or driving faster than a posted speed is a crime yet there is no body or injury.
Now reckless driving can be proven by injury to a party and punishment should be very harsh.

I'd argue that we are harmed more by the existence of the BATFE than by any of the "crimes" they're designed to investigate and prosecute.

 

[Angered_Kabar]

Yes, show me the victim of a felon in possession. Show me the victim if I were to have an unlicensed suppressor, short barreled ______ or machine gun. Who is the victim of "unlawful possession"? There is none. Illegal sales? Same. The buyer may choose to use that illegally purchased firearm in a harmful manner. That is the crime.

I can make broad assumptions because easily 90% of firearms laws at all levels are completely victimless.

In the case of unregistered NFA items the victim is the federal government.

 

[M. Sage]

In the case of unregistered NFA items the victim is the federal government.

Haha, their lack of revenue, I know. Ditto with not paying any other tax.

But the government doesn't count as a victim, since it's not a person.

How about state-level laws against NFA stuff? They're not demanding tax, they're just saying "don't, or we'll imprison or kill you." But why!? "Because, we, uhhh, said so!"

Malum prohibitum is "because I said so". Now, think about where you've heard that phrase before. Pretty insulting to have the government using it as justification, isn't it?