Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the Supreme Court still doesn't understand about guns
Fox News ^ | June 25, 2014 | John Lott

Posted on 06/25/2014 7:37:06 PM PDT by richardb72

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: hanamizu

Exactly.


21 posted on 06/25/2014 9:41:09 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hootowl

If you look at the form 4473 there is a block (11a) you fill out stating that you are the transferee. It makes exception for gifts which are explained in the instructions. The instructions at the end of the form for block 11 a state that if you were given money for the gun before the purchase you must answer no, you are not the transferee. It also explains the conditions for a gift, which this transfer did not meet. I read in an article somewhere that the uncle wrote the guy a check two days beforehand with “for Glock handgun” written in the memo line. This guy lied on the form and ignored the instructions. I do not know how the feds got alerted to this and I think this is a BS prosecution but this LEO should have known better than to blatantly lie or let his uncle give him a check that said what it did on it.


22 posted on 06/25/2014 9:45:11 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

How the hell did this even get to court? The guy must have figured it was OK, and just blabbed about it until some hammer toting DA saw a nail sticking up...


23 posted on 06/25/2014 11:13:56 PM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
I don't know a lot about this case, but I thought I read that one of the issues is that Congress did not make straw purchases a crime, and that it was ATF(?) who stretched the law to do so. If that is the case, then the USSC did in fact expand the law in the process of interpreting it. But I could be totally wrong about that.
24 posted on 06/26/2014 3:51:58 AM PDT by boomstick (One of the fingers on the button will be German.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu; All

“Now, whether or not the straw purchase law is a good idea or not is another matter. But, in my opinion, the Supreme Court did not expand the straw purchase law at all—they just didn’t contract it.”

The problem is the “straw purchase” part. The BATFE added that part of the law. It is not original law, it is regulatory add on. You can argue that the original law is ambiguous, but as Scalia noted, ambiguity is to be decided in favor of the defendant.


25 posted on 06/26/2014 5:18:55 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

I think the key is that the uncle sent a check for the gun a couple of days before the original purchase. That was the evidence of a “straw” purchase - to get the police discount.

FWIW.


26 posted on 06/26/2014 5:41:22 AM PDT by MortMan ("Homeland" may be a documentary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
In my world, a “straw purchase” is when someone who is not legally able to buy a gun has someone else buy it for them and the gun is then transferred/possessed by the one who is prohibited from owning a gun without any background check.

That's the intent of the law that they ignore. It's odd that they would go after someone like this when there are a log bigger fish to fry.

Exactly. There was no intent in this particular case to break the law. The only intent was to save some money on the purchase price of the firewarm. There is no dispute that both parties were legally able to purchase the firearm.  I see a lot ot comments on threads about this case saying "well the law is the law", and my answer to that is that in this case, the law is an ass and so are its supporters.

The supreme court missed an opportunity to support a  common sense application of the law.

27 posted on 06/26/2014 10:41:16 AM PDT by zeugma (It is time for us to start playing cowboys and muslims for real now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Not correct.

Where I used to live, the local cops would call gun shops with the serial number of the weapon seized or found in order to locate the original purchaser.

Not sure if it ever worked out or not, but I was present for a number of calls in different shops (I knew a few of the cops at the time, and they confirmed it is what they did).


28 posted on 06/26/2014 11:09:47 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson