The linked reporting on this story is horrendous. 95% of it is about the grievous impact on the plaintiffs (the LEOs) and a couple percent is actual presented facts.
The gist of it is they claim the store:
1. Had a whole list of ATF violations in the past and the license was surrendered,
2. A new owner related somehow to the old owner(s) took over with a new ATF license which ATF gave, and
3. The new owner had questionable rigor in addressing the “telltale” signs of straw purchases - one of which was the under aged final recipient of the gun purchased.
I guess how, why, where, when, who and what happened during the sale will come out during the trial.
I’ve never understood how they can claim it a straw purchase unless the buyer says, “I’m buying this for my cousin Vinnie” or hands it to some kid on the way out of the shop.