Anti-gun protester finds himself in a major violation of the very laws he supports

Sometimes, a simple mistake can turn a law-abiding citizen into a felon thanks to the bloated laws in America.

Recently, an Oregon pastor found himself on the wrong side of the law when he transferred a legally obtained firearm to another individual without making that person get a background check.

Here’s the story, according to PJ Media: the Rev. Jeremy Lucas purchased $3,000 in raffle tickets from a local softball team.  He wasn’t doing this to support his community, necessarily, but to win the grand prize: an AR-15. And he did win — and he wanted it destroyed and off the streets.

But here’s where this anti-gun activist made a terrible error:

Lucas, who passed a background check at a local gun shop before taking possession of the AR-15, told the Washington Post that he and his wife then “drove it to the home of a parishioner, a ‘responsible gun owner,’ Lucas said, who offered to keep the rifle locked up in a gun safe until the pastor is ready to destroy it.”

For that transfer of possession to be legal under Oregon law, the Christ Church Episcopal parishioner should have undergone a background check at a licensed gun dealer while Lucas was present. If that did not happen, Lucas may have committed a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $6,250 and as much as a year in jail.

Well, that was a painful way  to learn just how stupid many gun laws are. Instead of protecting Lucas, this law is about to turn him, a respected citizen — a pastor, no less — into a felon for breaking a law he didn’t even know existed. The irony is, it’s the kind of law any anti-gun activist would get behind.

Pro-gun members of the community are eating this up. One of them, Oregon Firearms Federation Executive Director Kevin Starrett made this observation:

“If the pastor is prosecuted, it will demonstrate the idiocy of the law and the people who passed it. If the pastor is not prosecuted, it will demonstrate that anti-gun liberals are above the law and it was only intended to hurt the average gun owner, against whom it could be selectively enforced.”

That’s exactly right! Are we to believe that this silly law was passed with someone like Lucas in mind? Or shall we assume what we already know: that gun laws, beyond the Second Amendment, are simply meant to restrict gun ownership and punish gun owners?