Posted on 03/17/2016 7:37:41 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
Does this mean you can’t use your wife’s guns and vice versa?
There are so many ^#@$^%$#^ gun laws nowadays that you may as well give up owning any guns if you want to keep all of the laws to the letter.
Don’t know. Like I mentioned, WCCO is doing their best to call this a simple crime. While all of the other media outlets in town aren’t even covering it.
Minnesota nice.
When the “journalists” in MN are the last to be killed, maybe then they will get it.
Ha!
Don’t live in Minnesota, do you, Gunny?
Even better, he’s going to a Federal lockup, where he’ll do better than most Disabled American Veterans.
Sounds like the Austin, TX uber lib msm. They’ve refused to admit there was voter fraud and computers had to be taken out on primary day. There was also a news blackout last April when the New Black Panthers marched down Sixth St. fully armed with rifles chanting about killing cops and whites and stood in front of the state capital building. Not one peep. Zip. Nada. Nothing. There is little substance to any reporting.
A Christian would got 10 years.....
No, it means either buying for anyone else in a state like CA, or buying for a prohibited person in most of the others.
Depends on the state.
New law in Washington, passed based on ‘sensible background checks’ says that handing a gun to someone else to shoot is a transfer, without documentation. May be a felony for both?
Exception if you are at a ‘liscenced gun range’.
Eastern WA sheriffs are not enforcing.
I got this mostly correct. Main point, and you have got it, is you get your law degree and then get your gun.
Meanwhile Eric Holder walks free.
Buying a gun (and filling out the forms for yourself) when gun is intended for another person.
Despite its sinister characterization, it's commonplace, IMHO. Guns are transferred in this manner, or, shall we say, in manners closely resembling this, routinely. An individual can buy a gun for himself/herself, and then later (1 year, 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour) decide to give that gun or sell it privately to someone else. That's the same effect as a "Straw Man purchase through an FFL". So tha in and of itself is kid of ticky tack.
But, lessee, an Islamic wife of a Muslim gets a request from her husband to buy a bunch of guns for him by using her name? That might be a bit of a red flag.
Thus, the real issue is (or should be): whether the person charged knowingly transferred the gun to someone who was legally prevented from owning one, or to someone that they had reason to believe was engaging in crime (terrorism, bank robbery, muggings, etc.)
Doing it through an FFL dealer is what made it a crime basically.
Right?
Can't you truthfully declare you're buying it as a gift (on an FFL form)?
In any event unloaded, in a box, in a stocking is a fine American idea if the stocking is out of reach of children.
So, does the legal distinction have more to do with whether it's intended for a criminal enterprise, or whether the person ultimately receiving it is legally permitted to do so?
Now see, that should be legal (marching in a militia company), up and to the point where the inciteful chanting starts occurring. At that point, there's probably some lawbreaking going on. That's over the line.
That's what seems reasonable to me, at least...
OMG. Aren't Democrats great?
Go to prison if you own a gun and your papers aren't in order?
Talk about fascist.
That’s the idea.
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.