Posted on 02/15/2019 3:57:58 PM PST by rellimpank
--(snip)
"The proposal, Senate Bill 143, exempts some exchanges, including ones that occur between immediate family members. That includes spouses, parents and children, but not in-laws. Assemblywoman Jill Tolles, R-Reno, shared that she bought her first firearm from her sister-in-law and previously received hunting rifles from her father-in-law. Tolles asked if those transfers would now result in a gross misdemeanor.
“In those instances, the simplest solution would probably be for your spouse or your sibling, if they took possession of the gun and then gave the gun to you,” Rosen said.
That’s a logical solution with one small problem. That would be a straw purchase, which is a crime punishable by 10 years in jail.
Under federal law, a straw purchaser is someone who obtains a firearm intending to transfer it to someone else. The goal is to stop someone without a criminal record from buying a gun for someone who can’t obtain one legally. Having purer motives doesn’t make it any less illegal. None of that seemed to occur to Rosen — until a gun store owner pointed it out while testifying against the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
Civil disobedience is the answer.
JoMa
So what’s the impact to the family gan cabinet? I have 3 generations of guns in a family gun cabinet. If I buy my son a deer rifle or a dove shotgun is that going to be a felony. How about the self defense pistol for my daughter.
I would think communal property would make the Democrats/socialist in this great country spasm in joy. Not so much for 15 oz of metal.
That's not exactly correct. It is certainly legal (under federal law and that in normal states) to purchase a gun as a gift for someone. It's only a straw purchase if the buyer knows (or should know) the ultimate recipient is not legally allowed to purchase it directly.
So in this case, since the ultimate recipient is legal to possess, would you call it a "straw transaction" if the only questionable part is the actual transaction itself? If so, that's as bogus as the process "crimes" Dems always trying to nail anyone on that they don't like.
What’s the penalty for finding a gun somewhere in the house?
Laws don’t apply to liberals.
They think they can take away natural rights. They really think a piece of paper or a judge’s decision grants or removes the right to protect life and liberty.
What they get you for, in a straw purchase, is not the transfer to a prohibited person (the actual definition of a straw purchase), but for making a false statement on a federal form 4473, where it asks you if you are making the purchase for yourself. Thus, you can be mailed even if transferring to someone who is not prohibited.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/supreme-court-tightens-definition-straw-purchase
In gifting from one family member to another, there is no federal paperwork.
At times like this I am reminded of when anti-gun Sarah Brady bought a rifle across state lines, then gave it to her son. No background check for him.
Any federal gun control law is unconstitutional.
How can you break an illegal or unconstitutional *law*?
This would be too extreme to call it a straw purchase/straw transfer. So, father gives firearm to daughter. Daughter keeps it in her home. Her husband uses it. Likes it. Daughter says “hubby you like it, it’s yours”. Or, assuming the married couple never split - what’s the difference? Hubby uses wife’s firearm... Unless one of them is a legally prohibited person.
If the question is one of intent, it would be very hard to prove in court.
There are all kinds of unconstitutional government edicts. How about the ‘gag order’ that prevents Roger Stone (and many other defendants in criminal cases) from speaking about their case in public? How is that not a 1A violation, as well as a 4A, 5A and 6A violation?
I agree with you, but it is a question of whether one put in the position is willing to accept the consequences of fighting or flaunting the edict. It shouldn’t be this way. But it is, more and more...
#NotMyLaw
Civil disobedience is the answer.
Nah. Treat the enforcers as attackers who are intent on murdering you.
You have to buy a round of drinks at the local pub in celebration...
My Father gave me a .410 Shotgun and a .22 Bolt Action Rifle when I was eight years old.
It was none of the damn Government’s business then and it sure as hell isn’t their business now.
>Laws don’t apply to liberals.
And Rights don’t hinder the progression of GOVT (doesn’t matter the party).
If the recipient (via gift or sale) is not prohibited by law from owning a gun, it's just another transaction between private parties. IOW, non of the government's stinkin' business.
What if I’m scuba diving in the lake and find guns on the bottom?
If you’re in the midwest on a farm, probably no problem at all.
If you’re in a large city you’re just one law enforcement invasion away from being termed the owner of a massive arsenal. Then if you actually have ammo for those guns, you’re automatically assumed to be getting ready for an act of terrorism.
comment Number 1: its an “infringement”
comment Number 2: “O, what a tangled web (they) weave, when first (they) practice to deceive!” (Sir Walter Scott...)
comment Number 3: and they can GTH with their fascist ideas, too.
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.