Or was that supposed to be humor?
Which claim is your claim? That she called them and told them there is no VA law?
If so, point me to the part where she published what she told them in that conversation. Does it say who she spoke to?
You said Virginia law treats shotguns and rifles identically. Curiously, even now, you point to only one of the two differences, omitting the one that might undermine your case. Is this your bias, or did you just miss it? (I’m being sarcastic. I assume you just missed it. But you see the point.)
As it turns out, certain classes of people (non-citizen, non-LPRs) are not permitted to buy AR-15s but can buy shotguns. See paragraph 8 of your cite. What will I learn if I search to see what kind of ID is sufficient to establish that someone is a citizen?
Just to avoid playing gotcha, here’s the cite you might want to read, Bricker:
Did he have those documents on him?
Here is the Washington Times article, which says:
Granted, this article does not explicitly relate the contents of the conversation. But given the context of the article, it’s pretty clear she asked them for comment on the errors pointed out in the article. This is substantiated by her Twitter account of the incident, which links to this Wash Times story discussing the NYT corrective reaction.
True – but then that paragraph doesn’t have a footnote reference. Still, technical point to you: I revise my remark to say: “Virginia law treats rifles and shotguns identically as applied to Mr. Alexis’ situation. Inasmuch as Alexis was a US citizen not under 18, the distinctions between the two in Virginia law did not impair him in any way whatsoever.”
And this sarcasm makes my point. You might wonder if I missed it or, out of bias, ignored it. But what is my reaction when it’s brought to my attention? I CORRECT THE ERROR.
Correctly, so to speak.
Yes, he did, and we know this because the store won’t sell him even the shotgun unless he can prove he is either a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States. This is required to comply with Va Code § 18.2-308.2:01(B):
Because we know Alexis was in fact a citizen, any document sufficient to prove his lawful presence would prove he was a citizen.
I don’t see anything on Ms. Miller’s Twitter feed suggesting she contacted anyone at the Times. You know just as well as I do that “Spokesmen for the Times did not respond to requests for comment” could easily mean some intern left a voice message and no one called back. In short, it is not at all clear that the Times was aware of their mistaken characterization of the law on September 18.
But I’ll grant that it’s entirely possible they were. I still don’t think that gets you anywhere. What they had at that point was a state law that contradicted what law enforcement sources had told them. The logical thing to do is more reporting, and to issue a correction once the legal side of it is confirmed. That this took as long as 48 hours doesn’t shock me.
In my view, your better argument was about how even the correction was wrong. But as it turns out, if it is wrong, it is only by suggesting that only out-of-state buyers–and not all buyers-- are the ones who “must provide additional forms of identification to purchase a high-capacity AR-15 rifle.”
So now the only question is whether he had that additional ID or not. Your claim is that he must have had that ID because VA law requires proof of lawful status for all firearm sales. But that claim is not supported by your citation to the law, which doesn’t say anything about ID requirements. The only law on ID presented so far suggests he may not have had the necessary additional ID to purchase an assault firearm.
Once a term is defined, it isn’t usually re-defined in every subsequent usage.
ETA:
Err, no. We know that’s false since the law very clearly says what is required to prove citizenship.
My argument would fall flat if it were only that “even the correction was wrong.” It’s the aggregate of all the errors, each one somehow continuing to support the narrative that the NYT favors, that proves the point.
True. But it clearly mandates that only persons lawfully present in the United States are permitted to possess firearms of any kind.
By what method might a US citizen prove he is lawfully present in the United States, and fail to prove he is a citizen? He won’t, for example, have a green card or a valid visa, because he’s a citizen.
Having purchased the bulk of my own firearms at the exact store, I can tell you from personal knowledge that they require a birth certificate, a certificate of naturalization, a foreign passport with valid, current visa (or a US passport, which obviously needs no visa), a US citizen identification card, a valid voter registration card, or a current selective service registration card. While the law doesn’t specify that list, there’s also no way to comply with the law except by using that list.
And again: look how far you’re bending over to construct some set of circumstances in which the NYT is not as wrong as it was.
Why is this claim subject to such an extraordinary measure of examination? We’ve had the Washington Times intern lying about making a phone call; now we have the gun store making their own rules on verifying legal US presence, and these are more plausible than the NYT deliberately slanting a story to meet their preferred narrative?
Ok. But not this aspect of it any longer, I presume? You’re abandoning this piece of the evidence?
I don’t think it matters, since there is no requirement that lawful presence be verified by the seller for the purchase of an ordinary shotgun, AFAICT. But often official state ID is sufficient to prove lawful presence (as they are not always issued to illegal immigrants), but insufficient to prove either citizenship or LPR status.
For every purchase?
Even if so, then you’ve changed your argument. Now your argument isn’t that we know he had this ID because of VA law. Now your argument is that we know he had it because of Bricker’s experience at Sharpshooters. I trust you see the relevant difference.
I’m not the one bending here. You’re the one forced to rely on personal anecdote to prove your central thesis: that Alexis could have purchased an AR-15.
Maybe I’ve misread you. Are you saying Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2 (West) is entirely redundant because those documents are required for every firearm purchase?
If that’s your argument (and not that Sharpshooters merely requires them out of personal preference), then I’ll need to see some legal support. Ordinarily, merchants aren’t charged with enforcing criminal laws on possession unless expressly required to do so, and statutes are assumed not to be completely redundant. If you’re saying both of those is true, I’ll need something more than your say-so.
I just said, “My argument would fall flat if it were only that “even the correction was wrong.” It’s the aggregate of all the errors, each one somehow continuing to support the narrative that the NYT favors, that proves the point.”
Why, then , would I abandon one of them. The aggregate proves the absence of mistake. If you focus myopically on each step, of course you can argue, “Hey, that’s just an honest mistake; it doesn’t show any ill intent.”
So I can see why you’d be eager to focus on each step in isolation. But, no.
A store that sold an ordinary shotgun without verifying the lawful presence of the purchaser would be on the hook for facilitating that offense – for being an accessory before the fact to the crime, as prohibited by § 18.2-18. It’s true that Virginia state drivers’ licenses supposedly prove lawful presence, but Sharpshooter’s doesn’t accept even that as proof. As a matter of personal knowledge, I’m telling you what Sharpshooter’s accepts.
Not for ammunition or accessories. But for every firearms purchase, yes.
No. Because of Sharpshooter’s adherence to Virginia law. While the law does not directly list acceptable documents, they can’t conform to the law’s requirements otherwise. So Virginia law is still the controlling factor here.
They have a pre-printed form that lists the ID they require – shall I scan a copy and post the link?
Because one of them was manifestly wrong. I thought you had admitted that. Are you continuing to assert that the NYTimes correction is wrong in a way that supports your thesis?
As for the rest, see my prior post. You do indeed seem to be claiming that the assault firearms law is a redundancy.
Yes – when did I ever say otherwise???
Absolutely not.
There’s nothing even remotely complicated about this, Richard. Either my skill at explaining things sucks or you have decided to deliberately approach every point as requiring an insane level of support, while simultaneously accepting the NYT’s words as if handed down from Sinai.
When great minds collide, we lesser sorts are often dazzled and confused.
Has this come down to the New York Times alone? Are we now debating whether the *Times *is biased against the AR-15, rather than some some vast subconscious collusion within the “media”? Shirley, we have not commonly agreed that the Times is the media?
And, of course, there is some subjectivity here. Friend Bricker shows an unshakeable faith in the truthiness and candor of the Washington Times. A viewpoint I frankly do not share. I trust the Washington Times somewhat less than Sean Hannity, who’s mouth he has transformed from a pie intake orifice into a geyser of disinformation.
Is this subjective, does it lack objectivity? Well, yes, just as characterizing a response as “anemic” is, unless we have some commonly agreed standard. But I am not in friend **Bricker’**s uncomfortable stance, trying to prove that a subjective impression is an objective fact.
You didn’t. I had understood your prior comment as conceding that the evidence unequivocally showed that the correction was accurate as applied to Mr. Alexis, and that you would abandon trying to argue that this showed some bias. I did not realize at that time that you’re still trying to argue that no more ID is required to purchase an AR-15 than a shotgun.
No. Neither thing is true. I think you haven’t fully processed the import of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2 for your argument.
I’ll make it as simple as possible:
In order to buy an ordinary shotgun in the Commonwealth of Virginia, does the law require that a person present the documents listed in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2 in the section concerning assault rifles?
Yes or no. We can go from there.
No.
There are additional documents that “a person” could present that would permit the purchase of a shotgun, but would not be sufficient for the purchase of an AR-15.
But the question you should be asking is not about “a person,” generally. You should be asking about a person similarly situated to Mr. Alexis: a US citizen, resident of the state of Texas.
In order to buy an ordinary shotgun in the Commonwealth of Virginia, does the law require that a person so situated present the documents listed in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2 in the section concerning assault rifles?
Yes. Not explicitly, but by elimination. For example, Mr. Alexis could not possibly present a Permanent Resident Card, even though Virginia law would allow him to buy a shotgun (but not an assault rifle) with a permanent resident card. As a U.S. citizen, Alexis does not – and cannot – have a permanent resident card.
You’re still taking as your premises, as yet unsupported by citation, that (1) stores selling firearms other than assault rifles are obligated to check ID to confirm lawful presence; and that (2) a citizen’s proof of lawful presence is only the things listed in 18.2-308.2:2 and not, say, an official state ID card.
I see no support for either statement. (I do see now how you can eliminate the redundancy problem by thinking the VA assault firearm regulations were only intended to affect certain immigrants (which seems unlikely to me)).
But citations aside, I’m not sure even you believe your own position. Are you telling me that if I go to Dick’s in Williamsburgh and attempt to buy a shotgun with my Pennsylvania ID and an expired U.S. Passport, I will be turned away for insufficient ID?
It occurs to me that I should read the actual provisions, because maybe I’m missing something you’re expecting me to have read. Back in a minute.
Ok. I see that Part B(5) requires “proof of citizenship” for an out-of-state resident to buy a shotgun.
So I take your argument to be that the documents following the phrase “To establish citizenship or lawful admission for a permanent residence for purposes of purchasing an assault firearm…” are co-extensive with the documents sufficient for Part B(5) when it comes to a US Citizen?
I’m telling you that Sharpshooter’s in Lorton, Virginia, uses the list of documents I posted above, and they do so in a prudent effort to conform to Virginia law. I have no idea if Dick’s in williamsburg has decided that an expired passport can serve as proof of citizenship for the purposes of complying with § 18.2-308.2:2(B)(5) when § 18.2-308.2:2(B)(1) requires an unexpired passport. So far as I can tell, no Virginia court has addressed that issue, and, given the rule of lenity, that Dick’s store might survive the inquiry unscathed. Or they might not. So if I were advising Dick’s, I’d advise them to emulate Sharpshooter’s and insist on an unexpired passport.
But Alexis did not buy the shotgun in Willamsburg at Dick’s. And this entire inquiry is an outlandish effort to save the NYT from being wrong.
Why is the Washington Post’s in-depth article, garnered from information obtained by visiting the store and speaking with the store’s employees, dismissed, and the NYT’s piece of crap so lovingly endorsed, Richard?