Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Got it

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... -purchases

Not the only stupid law that's still a law you're supposed to obey.
I do wish they would spend their resources on more pressing issues, though.

While this transaction may have violated the letter of the letter, it has violated the spirit of the law which is to help prevent people that couldn't pass background checks from getting firearms.

Once again, the more complex you make the law, the more you ensnare otherwise law-abiding citizens.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Sometimes, at least, Mr. Bumble had it right: "......the law is an ass." This is one of those times.

What a nightmare for this man. What a mess for all of us.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

again they go after the good guys using the laws that are intended to stop the bad guys.

Ayn Rand once said "To control the population, you make EVERYTHING illegal, and let police have discretion on arrests."

I guess we learned not to tell anyone that the purchaser was reimbursed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought this was a decent write up. I wasn't aware of some of the other background, but the former officer involved had some other legal trouble that led to the issue if all this info is correct.

http://thebullelephant.com/obamas-anti- ... ys-ruling/

So my reading of this decision is it effectively prohibits purchasing firearms as gifts as well.

You can only step up to the counter and check the "I'm the real purchaser" box if you at that moment intend to buy, and keep the firearm. If you anticipate any probable transfer to another, then that's a straw purchase.

No buying a .22 for the 12 year old and telling him its his when he turns 18. That would be a 6 year into the future planned straw purchase.

dusterdude wrote:I guess we learned not to tell anyone that the purchaser was reimbursed

And to perform all reimbursements in cash. And not deposit the same amount that the other party withdrew.

Wait, so if I buy a gun, it becomes a 10 year safe queen, then I sell it to someone else to make room in my safe, I'm a criminal? Now that's logic!

Swampman wrote:Wait, so if I buy a gun, it becomes a 10 year safe queen, then I sell it to someone else to make room in my safe, I'm a criminal? Now that's logic!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. You just gotta "build a record". Every time you buy a gun, tell a couple of your cop buddies you love it and will never, ever part with it no matter what and you're checking to see if it's legal to be buried with it. Then if you do decide to get rid of it, tell some other credible witnesses a credible story about why you're forced to do so. Most reliable excuses would probably be: (1) I have to do it to pay for all those shoes my wife bought, and (2) " The Obamacare premiums leave me no choice." <<<DISCLAIMER: I am not advising dishonesty or duplicity or evasion of the law; I am poking fun at a ridiculous legal scheme>>>

These days, honesty carries a mighty high price tag.

so an update to my previous post, now that I've had time to sit down and read the whole of the SCOTUS opinion rather than just a journalist's view of the decision.

Gifts are specifically called out and addressed as OK.
Later sales are OK.

The core of the problem was Abramski taking money from Alvarez to make the purchase. And this specific example is included in the directions on the back of the 4473. Law being stupid, or not, Abramski did very clearly, and specifically did do EXACTLY what the 4473 said was a straw purchase.

How about a "Nunya" law?

It's NUNYA business unless someone commits a CRIME with it!

jdonovan wrote:So my reading of this decision is it effectively prohibits purchasing firearms as gifts as well.

Not sure how you get that. The recipient of a gift is not a "purchaser". If the second transfer is performed within the laws of your state, I don't see how there could be an issue.

These guys were clearly trying to play games with a system known to be both capricious and unforgiving.

j1mmyd wrote:

jdonovan wrote:So my reading of this decision is it effectively prohibits purchasing firearms as gifts as well.

Not sure how you get that. The recipient of a gift is not a "purchaser". If the second transfer is performed within the laws of your state, I don't see how there could be an issue.

These guys were clearly trying to play games with a system known to be both capricious and unforgiving.

jd had already clarified this two posts up...

It's a messy case, but still a bad outcome. The second purchaser (intended recipient) was trying to take advantage of a discount to which his "agent" (the first purchaser ) was entitled but to which he was not, and, yes, he provided the cash--so definitely an element of dishonesty.

The reason I have a problem with the ruling is that the story didn't end there. A second FFL transaction occurred when purchaser one, the so-caller "straw purchaser" transferred it to purchaser 2. So there was no purchase/transfer to purchaser 2, the end recipient, until the 2nd, unquestionably legit FFL transaction had occurred.

The other problem with a case like this is that it moves the goalposts for the next antigun judge ruling on a questionable case. So are our rights chipped away at....