Oh yeah, there's a good reason to step on the Second Amendment - again!
Posted on 11/02/2009 8:34:27 AM PST by Kid Shelleen
THERESA JONES had a drug problem and an empty wallet.
In 2003, when a neighbor offered her $75 to buy him a gun, she readily agreed, even though the man had a criminal record and couldn't legally buy or possess a gun. After the sale, the neighbor carried off his new Ruger 9 mm pistol. Jones never saw it again.
--snip-- Thugs recruit acquaintances with clean records to buy them guns, and women are a growing target.
Blinded by love or fueled by financial need, women represent a quarter of about 350 straw buyers arrested in Philadelphia since a multiagency Gun Violence Task Force launched in 2006, data shows.
Oooo! I have a Ruger 9mm pistol!
Can I buy it for $75? Talk about a discount.
I was in a local gun shop in the spring. There were 3 “youths” in this store. It was not a Class A store and the ammo is always the cheapest in town. While I was there, the owner and sales guy kept telling them they could not look a fire arm or purchase ammo without a valid ID. On of the young men finally produced ID, HIS PAROLE CARD!
The owner immediately told them they had to leave. On the way out, the Parolee asked if his girlfriend could buy the gun for him. “She doesn’t have a record.”
After they left, I asked the owner about it. He said while that is the first time that has happened, they turn people out of their store on a weekly basis when they suspect straw purchases. He says it is usually so obvious and even commented that men bring in women and do all the looking and at the last minute want to have the “girlfriend” buy the gun.
I don’t think many women realize they are committing a felony.
Oh yeah, there's a good reason to step on the Second Amendment - again!
The above refers to the tough laws on the books (supported by the NRA and gun rights groups) that forces mandatory sentences for those conducting straw purchases.
Of course, we have the liberal media asking the wrong question......they ask if the law is too tough on the straw purchaser instead of asking if the law is too lenient on the thug who pulled the trigger.
[snip]
"Women in the throes of drug addiction or acting out of romantic loyalties are sitting ducks and have no idea they are being thrown to the wolves," said Glenn Gilman, a defense attorney who represents Jones, now 46. "Yes, committed a technical crime, but do they deserve the draconian penalty imposed?"
Read: Women are obviously too fragile and precious (and stupid) to make good decisions for themselves and their children. It's high time the state help them out by making sure they can't purchase firearms. It's for the children.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
A straw purchase is when you buy a firearm for someone who is not eligible and you know is probably not eligible to buy a firearm.
It has nothing to do with private sales.
Sounds like all the girlfriend has to do is claim she bought it for her own protection but when boyfriend dumped her, he stole the gun. Yeah, yeah, so she has a history of this but so do many.
She was offered $75 for her participation, not for the gun.
I've seen these billboards in Houston.
Don't lie for the other guy
“I don’t think many women realize they are committing a felony.”
Some may not, but Sarah Brady surely did when she bought a rifle for her son.
About twenty years ago, I was in a gun shop called “Traders” in San Leandro, CA, near the Oakland border. A young black female customer, who looked like she was barely 21-yrs old, was paying cash for five or six new handguns. The guns were selected by a group of black teenagers (maybe young adults) standing with her. They picked which guns they wanted, and she paid with a large wad of bills.
The salesman was using the girl’s ID for the paperwork. But it was pretty obvious that she was buying for the guys with her.
“I don’t think many women realize they are committing a felony.”
Some may not, but Sarah Brady surely did when she bought a rifle for her son.
She still committed a felony and she knew it was at the time.
No matter what, the Criminals will find a way to Buy, Steal or even manufacturer guns.
Is the idea that we’re supposed to penalize the law-abiding just because it might be a little easier in some cases for the thugs to get them?
What law did she violate?
Yes, I actually understand the legalities. I was being facetious. But in practical terms there is no difference in outcome between a straw man purchase and private sale to someone you don’t know is ineligible to own a firearm (I’ve heard that criminals sometimes lie). It probably won’t be long before you’ll need a FFL to get rid of that old piece, or you’ll only be allowed to sell to a FFL dealer who will lowball you.
That’s one of the reasons Traders no longer sells firearms. The BATFE shut down that side of their business because of record keeping problems and too many guns used in Oakland crimes tracing back to Traders. I used to go there to buy ammo because they had some good deals. The clerks were usually ok but I really disliked some of the “clienteleâ€
She is a straw buyer. Falsification of official documents - one of the questions on the 4473 asks if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself. If you answer “No”, you may not complete the purchase.
No, I do not agree with the stupid law. Technically, it makes it illegal for you to purchase a firearm as a gift for your son/daughter/mother/father/etc.
She is a straw buyer. Falsification of official documents - one of the questions on the 4473 asks if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself. If you answer “No”, you may not complete the purchase.
I’m doubtful that if either of us actually dug up the statute, we’d find a prohibition on buying a gun as a gift, when both the giver and recipient are qualified to own guns.
And I just checked. 4473 asks if “you are the actual buyer” not “for yourself” as you suggest). It also states that “you are not the actual buyer if you are buying it on behalf of another person.” Buying someone a gift is not buying on their behalf by any definition. “On behalf” would apply when you were buying with their money, or expecting reimbursement, at their behest or direction.
To make it even more clear, the form gives the specific example that “You are also the actual buyer if you are legitimately acquiring the firearm as a gift for a third party.”
Sarah Brady may be an evil hypocrite, but she committed no felony, and our side is not helped by legally incorrect accusations.
Okay, I can accept that.
***The guns were selected by a group of black teenagers (maybe young adults) standing with her. They picked which guns they wanted,***
I remember pre-1968. No black man could buy a gun except a single shot .22 rifle or single shot .410 shotgun.
Meanwhile the rest of us could walk into any store (grocery, gun, clothing, hardware, army surplus, gas station) and buy any gun, no questions or paper work needed.
Here in Pennsylvania, which is a very pro-gun state, you must go through an FFL for all transfers except to immediate family.
Most FFL holders charge $5-$10 for this.
See #4.
Straw man deal: actual buyer is legally forbidden from making the purchase, and arranges for someone else to make it “legally” then subsequently makes the illegal transfer. Customer X can’t make the purchase, but Y can, so X gives Y the money for a “legal” purchase (actually a felony because it’s a conspiracy), then Y illegally gives the product to X.
Private sale: actual buyer does so lawfully and directly - no criminal activity involved.
Big difference.
And it’s a lot easier to hand a GF $500 to make the purchase than to try building a 9mm.
Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
It’s only illegal if she knows that the person she is buying it for is legally prohibited from purchasing it himself. She could buy it for him as a gift if he isn’t prohibited and she wouldn’t be breaking any laws.
Disobeying an illegal law is a moral responsibility and if I were on the jury I would have voted for nullification.
All laws relating to the purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms need to be invalidated. Anyone should be able to walk into a store or answer an add and buy a gun per the constitution.
“He says it is usually so obvious and even commented that men bring in women and do all the looking and at the last minute want to have the “girlfriend” buy the gun.”
I did something similar, taking the girlfriend to the gun store when I was buying her a used .38 special to protect herself. She had to do the paperwork because she was going to keep the gun. The clerk got suspicious when I paid for it.
“Meanwhile the rest of us could walk into any store (grocery, gun, clothing, hardware, army surplus, gas station) and buy any gun, no questions or paper work needed.”
Is that the same America where the clerks would let another white person take whatever they wanted without paying if no blacks were there to see it? /Eddie Murphy routine
Sarah Brady did not make a strawman purchase. It was a legal purchase as a gift. Look it up.
He paid her $75 for her effort in buying it for him, in addition to paying the new price.
It's not illegal unless the recipient is prohibited from owning one himself. Was her son a felon or otherwise prohibited?
I wouldn’t vote to nullify a law if the accused supports the law in question (unless it’s a fundamentally a good law and the “crime” in question is a unique case). If she supports a law, she should live by it. I would nullify a law I disagreed with for a good person. Now, I do realize she didn’t break the law, but had she technically broken the letter of it I would have given her no benefit of common sense. She’s staked out a position as an enemy of common sense, why should she then get to benefit from it?
What the hell are you talking about?
***What the hell are you talking about? ***
I am talking about the time BEFORE the 1968 gun control travesty became law.
I am talking about Southern gun dealers telling me what blacks were allowed to buy and what they were not allowed to buy.
I am talking about how anyone with a storefront or kitchen table could sell guns legally without fed gov interference.
I am talking about how NOW legal gun dealers CANNOT deny a black person a gun if they have no felonies, even if they “sell” the gun to a criminal boyfriend five minutes after they “buy” the gun from a dealer.
I don’t think there should be restrictions on the purchase of firearms, including buying them for others. Any law that restricts the ability of a person to legally buy a firearm runs against the constitution which is why jury nulification is in order.
But not for individual gun grabbers.
I want people to have the same freedoms regardless of whether I agree with their indiviual politics or not. Most of the anti-gun people I’ve known were just ignorant from lack of exposure to firearms. Buying and using a gun would help them get over it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.