Posted on 06/16/2004 12:28:58 PM PDT by wmichgrad
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A gun dealer should not face a misdemeanor charge for selling a firearm to an undercover law enforcement officer who indicated it was for an underage person who didn't have a license, the Michigan Supreme Court said in a decision released Wednesday.
The court ruled that longtime Detroit gun dealer General Laney didn't violate federal or state statutes that allow licensed 18-year-olds to buy or receive a pistol from a private party, but prohibits them from purchasing a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer.
In April 1999, two Wayne County sheriff's deputies — Walter Epps and Roshunda Coming — posed as customers interested in buying a gun for unlicensed 18-year-old civilian Antonio Little, who was working with them. It was intended to be a "straw buy," in which an individual who is legally able to purchase a weapon fills out paperwork on behalf of the individual who can't own one.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the dealer told the undercover deputies that he couldn't sell a gun to an 18-year-old without a license. The dealer also refused to accept payment for a firearm from Little, insisting that it come from one of the undercover deputies although they had indicated it was for Little.
The Supreme Court said there is no dispute that Epps bought the gun because he had a gun license, selected it and handed Laney the money to pay for it.
"Because (the dealer) complied with the plain and unambiguous language of the stature, he committed no crime," the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court ruling reverses a decision handed down by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled that decision should be left to a jury.
-
On the Net:
Michigan Court of Appeals: http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/
Don't Michigan cops have more important things to do than set up bogus sting operations on law-abiding citizens?
Shouldn't matter but at least the gun dealer made sure to be within the letter of the law.
Nope.
Law prohibits them from looking at criminals.
You don't even have to be a lawyer, let alone a DA or a Court of Appeals judge, to know that this guy broke no laws. As much as I hate lawsuits, this guy should be suing for malicious (political) prosecution.
On the form the cops probably put they were buying it for themselves. If they then gave it to the minor then the cops broke the law. Since most cops are above the law, nobody was charged. Wow talk about justice.
I got a gun for Christmas. My mom bought it. I was there and went through the background check since it was for me.
Going after real criminals requires competent investigation. These stings mean the police cultivate they own facts and evidence. Must less competency threshold.
Sadly, intelligence is not a requirement for law enforcement.
The cops broke the law. The dealer sold it to the cop. The dealer even sounds like he said no at first if it was for the 18 year old.
This is true.
Unfortunately.
No laws were broken.
Sounds like good news from the courts.
I hope it sets some precedent.
It's not entrapment. It's a failed attempt at entrapment. For entrapment to exist the defendant must actually commit a crime. Here, the police couldn't even get him to commit a crime, but still charged him.
To some members of the "law enforcement" community, there is nothing more important. Not ferreting out terrorists, not apprehending murderers or rapists. Nothing is more important than getting guns "off the street", especially those in *your* gun cabinet or safe.
Similar situation happened to me. I tried to buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show, and he wouldn't sell it to me because the address on my check didn't match the address on my license (I had recently moved, but hadn't changed my checks yet). My father tried to buy the gun, and the dealer said, "No, cause your buying it for him and that's illegal."
I admire this guy for going to trial.
Most innocent people accept a plea bargain rather than put themselves through the expense and stress of defending themselves in court, which is exactly what lazy cops count on.
The article makes clear that a private transfer to this individual is not illegal.
The court ruled that longtime Detroit gun dealer General Laney didn't violate federal or state statutes that allow licensed 18-year-olds to buy or receive a pistol from a private party, but prohibits them from purchasing a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer.
Confriming my notion that there isn't enough "real" crime around to justify the budgets we have.
Cut the budgets, and stop fleecing the tax payers.
This guy had little choice, almost any charge that could have been plead to would have resulted in the loss of his FFL. He'd be out of business. Certainly worth going to trial over.
So that's why there are no mirrors in Michigan police stations.
Sarah Brady has admitted doing as much in her memoirs.
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.