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

To: Mad Dawgg
In the US Argument to the Supremes:
Under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), it is unlawful “for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a * * * licensed dealer * * * knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement * * * intended or likely to deceive such* * * dealer * * * with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale * * * under the provisions of this chapter.”
My bold above, on what I think is the key phrase. Somebody purchasing a gun, intending to transfer it to someone who was legally ineligible to own a firearm, would be in violation. Mr Alvarez legally purchased the gun and took possession. He subsequently sold it to his uncle, making the transfer through a licensed dealer, who would have had to run a background check on the uncle. Both he and the uncle were legally able to own a gun.
17 posted on 01/22/2014 5:05:43 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: PapaBear3625
He subsequently sold it to his uncle, making the transfer through a licensed dealer, who would have had to run a background check on the uncle.

I think the key phrase legally, which would allow a narrow ruling, is "making the transfer through a licensed dealer." Many of us here would like something broader. There's no other reason to restrict this if the gun data is not kept as a secret registry.

41 posted on 01/22/2014 6:14:48 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

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