[boris]

They pass "one gun a month" laws (like here in the People's Republic of California). The "rationale" is that it will prevent 'straw purchasers'--people with previously "clean" records who buy lots of guns at once for resale on the streets.

Hmm. I walk into a gun store an order 20 guns. The state attorney general receives a request for a background check. Does he not become suspicious about why I am ordering 20 guns?

Next month, I order 20 more. Do not flags go up at this point?

My point is that "one gun a month" rules are ridiculous since they presuppose that the AG is not doing his job. A reasonable person would wonder why my second order (let alone the first) caused no concern. Evidently the state AG is guilty of multiple counts of misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance in performing his duties. So they slap a band-aid on it termed 'one gun a month.'

I like to fantasize about starting a "Gun of the Month" club, but I fear few are wealthy enough to join. I certainly couldn't!

--Boris

[boris]

"an"=="and"

Sorry

[gonzo]

"... I like to fantasize about starting a "Gun of the Month" club, but I fear few are wealthy enough to join. I certainly couldn't!..."

Well, this sucker will make yer day:

Have a nice day, and clean-off that stupid mini-van ahead of you...........FRegards

[Atlas Sneezed]

(ping)

"My point is that "one gun a month" rules are ridiculous since they presuppose that the AG is not doing his job. A reasonable person would wonder why my second order (let alone the first) caused no concern. Evidently the state AG is guilty of multiple counts of misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance in performing his duties. So they slap a band-aid on it termed 'one gun a month.'"

It's a very good point you make. When one attempts the second purchase (or even if not) the AG can articulate reasonable suspicion to detain and interview the bulk-buyer. If the buyer can't provide a good story of what happened to the guns (or that he still has them), there may be probable cause for a search warrant.

Then again, the buyer could say that he is preparing to outfit an army in the event that public officials like AGs and judges try to overthrow the Constitution, and that the guns are secreted to avoid illegal confiscation by such officials. (This would be legal, if I'm not mistaken)

Of course, free citizens should not be denied use of guns anywhere, and there should be no requirement to identify a buyer or record purchase data, so any enforcement of these laws is improper, and the "problem" discussed above is a result of gun prohibition, not a justification for it.