[Seeking the truth]

Yesterday, a spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of Justice said it misinterpreted the law and that Brady was not obligated to state that the gun was for her son as long as he was legally qualified to own a firearm.

I am not an expert on the relevant law but this still does not make sense to me. According to this sentence, the purchaser makes the determination as to the legal qualifications of the person they intend to buy the weapon. I thought some type of governmenal agency, state or federal, makes this "gun control law" determination based on the background checks.

[Joe Brower]

[Mr. Bird]

I agree with you. The only instance where I can see this purchase as legal is one where the son is a minor. This clearly states that her son is an adult. If Sarah Brady did not break the law, then what the hell is the law? If it's legal to buy a gun for someone who is legally qualified to own it, why do background checks at all? It is highly unlikely that a legal purchaser would send someone not legally qualified to purchase it......I'm baffled, and babbling......