All Gun Shops Should Cease Selling To Hispanics Immediately, page 14

privacy

Pages: << 11 12 13 14 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 12:06 AM by americandingbat

reply to post by mnemeth1

yup; I edited my last post a couple times to thank you and to add what I got from reading the court documents

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 12:16 AM by mnemeth1

reply to post by americandingbat

What you wrote isn't what happened either.

If you are going to paraphrase the documents, at least get the facts straight.

One of the group attempted to negotiate a sale, after which Copeland requested his ID. The man did not present ID so Copeland refused to sell to him.

Then Huerta stepped forward and decided to buy the gun at the price offered. Copeland asked Huerta for his ID and Huerta produced a valid Texas state issued license.

Copeland then sold the gun to Huerta.

What Huerta did AFTER Copeland sold the gun to him is a CRIME - one that HUERTA should have been charged for.

Copeland did everything he was legally obligated to do in that situation.

edit on 9-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 12:27 AM by americandingbat

reply to post by mnemeth1

From the document you linked:

Mr. Aviles agreed to pay $450, and took the money out of his pocket to hand to Copeland. Copeland asked for Mr. Aviles's identification, but Mr. Aviles could not or did not want to produce identification. Thus, another man in the group, Mr. Huerta, produced his own identification card, showed it to Copeland, and then took Mr. Aviles's money and gave it to Copeland in exchange for the pistol.

Observing the transaction, the agents believed Mr. Huerta was buying the gun on behalf of Mr. Aviles, as Mr. Huerta was not the one who had initially picked up the gun or negotiated for its price. When Copeland handed the gun to Mr. Huerta, he immediately handed it to Mr. Aviles. Copeland objected that he had sold the gun to Mr. Huerta, and therefore Mr. Huerta should hold onto the gun. Mr. Aviles handed the gun back to Mr. Huerta. But a minute or so after the group walked away from the table, Mr. Huerta handed the gun back to Mr. Aviles.

(bottom of page 2 to top of page 3, my apologies for any typos since I couldn't cut&paste)

I did use my own words to describe that scene since I didn't feel like doing all that typing, but I don't think my description was in any way misleading.

Clearly the government is making the case that Mr. Copeland should have known this was a "straw purchase" because of the behavior of the men, not because they were Hispanic as you assert in your OP.

edit on 9/9/2010 by americandingbat because: change quotation marks to bbcode ex tags

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 12:35 AM by mnemeth1

reply to post by americandingbat

Mr. Copeland did his fiduciary duty.

Huerta is the man that should have been charged with the straw purchase, not Copeland.

Copeland was not charged with a straw purchase - he was charged with selling to an illegal, because Huerta was an illegal.

The feds didn't charge Copeland with a straw purchase because he didn't engage in one.

The case has absolutely nothing to do with straw purchases - nothing - zip - nada - no charges were filed against Copeland for engaging in a straw purchase. The straw purchase is the crime Huerta engaged in.

Keep in mind Huerta testified to all of this at trial, under oath.

Huerta openly admitted in court that he was in the country illegally and conducted an illegal straw purchase - yet he was allowed to walk out of the courtroom under his own power while Copeland was sent to prison.

edit on 9-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 12:52 AM by mnemeth1

reply to post by americandingbat

Oh one more thing I would like to add.

You are insinuating that Copeland should have known that Huerta was going to make a straw purchase because his friend refused to show his ID.

Last time I checked, refusing to show your ID does not prove you are an illegal.

Hmmmm... sounds like you are suggesting Copeland should have acted like a racist and assumed Huerta was an illegal.

Are you a racist?

edit on 9-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 01:09 AM by americandingbat

reply to post by mnemeth1

I'm not asserting anything other than that the details of the case don't back up the claims you made in the OP and the rest of the thread.

I agree that Huerta should have been charged, but I don't really care that much. I have no opinion on whether Copeland should have been charged or not, or whether he should have been found guilty or not; I haven't seen the evidence.

My only point has been that the document does not support the premise of the thread.

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 01:12 AM by mnemeth1

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by mnemeth1

My only point has been that the document does not support the premise of the thread.

How do you figure?

As far as I can tell, the document completely supports every aspect of my claims with 100% certainty.

Not only that, but we are reading what the STATE said happened - and it still confirms everything I have claimed.

edit on 9-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 01:24 AM by americandingbat

reply to post by mnemeth1

We're not reading either the defense case or the prosecution case, we're reading the limited details the judge felt were needed background to include in a ruling on defense motions.

And at this point, we're just bickering, and I'm losing interest.

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 01:27 AM by mnemeth1

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by mnemeth1

We're not reading either the defense case or the prosecution case, we're reading the limited details the judge felt were needed background to include in a ruling on defense motions.

And at this point, we're just bickering, and I'm losing interest.

Your losing interest because I'm right about the law mandating gun dealers act like a bunch of racists.

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 12:32 PM by nighinfinite

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by nighinfinite
I don't know about you guys, but flame-bait threads like this one don't really help promote intelligent discussions, and feel a bit too "marketed" if you know what I mean.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by nighinfinite]

Flame bait? Do you mean like lighting a fire and watching the mosquitos come?

So instead of responding to the OP either in the affirmative or negative, you choose to call the OP a flame baiter?

A bit off-topic, and ad-hominem as well, no?

[edit on 9/5/2010 by abecedarian]

Because you know, this not-very-well presented satiric attempt, did successfully inspire on-topic discussions instead of off-topic controversy over the not-very-well presented satiric attempt itself, right?

It's the very fact this thread going off-topic that promoted me to question the OP's writing and intention. Like I said, misunderstanding goes both ways. The OP could certainly do better while retaining as strong if not more satire, and still avoid incoming flame war. But I agree this is fruitless. With all that's been said, I will zip.

OP, I apologize if the you feel I misjudged your intention.

edit on 9-9-2010 by nighinfinite because: clarification

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 12:41 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by nighinfinite

I am not being satirical.

What part of this are you not understanding?

If you sell to a Hispanic, you are in danger of going to prison, even if the Hispanic presents legal documentation.

I'm not sure how many more times I have to say this before it sinks in around here.

edit on 9-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-9-2010 @ 12:52 PM by nighinfinite

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by nighinfinite

I am not being satirical.

What part of this are you not understanding?

If you sell to a Hispanic, you are in danger of going to prison, even if the Hispanic presents legal documentation.

I'm not sure how many more times I have to say this before it sinks in around here.

edit on 9-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

I understand well you were just presenting a material. Well in the interest of on-topicness I will zip.

So is there an accompanying law that forbids Hispanic US citizens to buy and own guns? If not then this law is retarded in addition to being ridiculous.

edit on 9-9-2010 by nighinfinite because: grammar

reply posted on 21-9-2010 @ 10:04 AM by Procession101

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by tweakedvisions

i dont quite understand your logic.. to me, it sounds as if he went to jail for selling the firearm to an illegal immigrant, not because he was hispanic. wait if this said person came here illegally from canada and the guy got arrested for selling a firearm to him, would you say not to sell it to any white person who spoke with a northern accent?

He sold to a Hispanic male that spoke English and presented a valid drivers license.

Since there is no way to tell if a Hispanic is here illegally, you can not sell to a Hispanic looking person.

If the guy did not look Hispanic, he would not have been convicted.

The vet was convicted solely on the basis of the color of the man he was selling to.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by mnemeth1]

I seriously doubt that this is the complete story to it.
It's really easy to try and make anyone a victim when you only get parts of the story.

reply posted on 21-9-2010 @ 10:12 AM by mnemeth1

reply to post by Procession101

I don't care what you "doubt"

I care what the case files say.

It is crystal clear that:

1. He was not charged with the crime of straw buying/selling
2. He was ONLY charged with selling to an illegal
3. The illegal he sold to presented a valid drivers license.

These are the facts.

Pages: << 11 12 13 14 >> ^^TOP^^