[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.

[zeugma]

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.