Obvious Straw Purchase of a gun

[Racket_Man]

With all of the mass shootings and apparent gun violence here in the US this story made the national headlines a couple of days ago

This case involves a straw-purchased handgun.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/wat...332567372.html

There were LOTS of "red flags" that should have tipped off the clerk as to the nature of the purchase.

The gun was later used to shoot and seriously wound 2 police officers who them sued the gun dealer.

Now according to a 2005 Federal Law gun dealers were granted wide and deep immunity from law suits with some exceptions for violations of said law. Now the gun dealer in question has had more than a few problem in the past, including a recommendation for revocation of the Federal gun dealer license AND gun traces have shown this particular dealer has sold hundreds and possibly thousands of guns used in crimes across the area (data can not be shared between law enforcement juristictions and can not be released publicly because of another Federal Law so the true number is not actually known).

According to the plaintiffs THIS particular purchase was an OBVIOUS straw purchase. A straw purchase is defined as a legally entitled person purchasing a restricted item(s) for someone is NOT legally entitled to possess this item. and with the obviousness of said purchase (see the article) this transaction should NOT have been completed


What really bugs the shit out of me is this ---- When I was a cashier at a gas station/convience store that sold alcohol I had to be in valid fear of even non-obvious straw purchases. I could be fired, arrested, fined and possibly do jail time if I allowed such a purchase to occur NOT to mention that I now would have a criminal record that would follow me for life.

WHY is it that the obvious straw purchase of a deadly weapon is somehow less of a crime or carries less liability than the the same situation with alcohol????


Some of the protections and outrages of both the public and the politicians just do NOT make sense to me.

[s_stabeler]

for that matter, why can information on where a gun that was used illegally came from not be shared between jurisdictions? ( I can see why you don't want to release the data publically- it'd risk people taking vigilante action- but why can't it be shared between law enforcement jurisdictions? If guns from a particular store keep getting used in crimes, either the store is selling to customers who keep getting their guns stolen (in which case, it might be a good idea to educate the clientele of the store on how to keep your guns from getting stolen) or the store isn't checking the purchasers of the guns out well enough.)

[Greenday]

Basically the two guys went in there and the guy purchased the gun even stated it was for the other guy. So the gun shop owner helped him fudge the paperwork to make it legal.

It's blatantly illegal and this is a huge problem causing a lot of the gun problems America has.

[Gravekeeper]

This is Badger Guns isn't it? ....yep.

This isn't even the worst one about them. The worst one about them is when a suicidal woman bought a gun from them. Her family got it away from her in time. Then they told Badger Guns not to sell her another gun because she was suicidal and planning to do something drastic.

So they sold her a second gun and she shot herself and her father like 3 hours later.

[HYHYBT]

for that matter, why can information on where a gun that was used illegally came from not be shared between jurisdictions? ( I can see why you don't want to release the data publically- it'd risk people taking vigilante action- but why can't it be shared between law enforcement jurisdictions?

Because of the NRA. Basically, ANY information-gathering or record-keeping relating to gun purchases and use is portrayed as a precursor to the government's seizing all guns. This drives up sales and donations, as well as making it harder to compile statistics showing just how wrong their other claims are.

[BlaqueKatt]

WHY is it that the obvious straw purchase of a deadly weapon is somehow less of a crime or carries less liability than the the same situation with alcohol????

I posted this twice in the oregon shooter thread to show just how toothless the current laws are.

And you've got crap like this going on. 27 straw purchases(55 federal charges), with false ID and not a single day in jail, he got 5 years probation for buying guns for felons.

"He tearfully told the court Wednesday he was "unaware of how serious" his offense was."

Yes because it's not like the form states it's a felony.
Beginning of page 2

[Daskinor]

Even super liberal Maryland has some really annoying record keeping laws. No computers everything in ledgers because the government might grab guns. So everything needs to be difficult.

So if we even suspect you are going to straw purchase we will deny you the sale. Because if you end up in court over the gun, we will need to go in as a witness and state under oath that yes we sold so and so that particular gun. You know, because all handwritten records, we need to confirm that we wrote it.

You would be surprised how often it happens. Husband and wife come in, husband points out a gun. Next day just the wife shows up to purchase it. She will know almost nothing about the weapon but we will fill out the paperwork. Then call the state police to confirm she can be sold a gun. Because our spider sense is tingling, we have them run the husband too. Turns out he will have a DWI Probation or a Domestic Record (The most common two reasons why someone cant buy a gun around here). So we refuse to sell her the weapon.

[NecCat]

Turns out he will have a DWI Probation or a Domestic Record (The most common two reasons why someone cant buy a gun around here).

The domestic I understand, but what does a DWI have to do with gun ownership?

[Daskinor]

Maryland differentiates between DUI, and DWI. DUI carrying felony level penalties. Most of the time they get a plea deal for just probation. In Maryland if you are on felony probation you are "prohibited to possess firearms" unless you get a waver from a judge.

While you can still 'own' a gun they cannot be in your possession or have access to them. And you are prohibited from buying one because felony arrest.

[Tanasi]

I think a big part of the problem with straw purchases is the Justice Department really isn't interested to pursuing individuals unless there are large amounts of firearms involved or the individual is someone "famous" or the prosecution will embarrass the firearms community.
Technically Sarah Brady "straw purchased" a firearm. She bought a rifle for her son as a present. In filling out the 4473 it specially asks if the firearm is for you the buyer, if you answer no then the FFL holder is supposed to deny the sale. The last time I filled out the 4473 I don't remember there being a gift exception but that might have changed since.
I want the Justice Department to go after those that knowingly and with intent break gun laws, I have no sympathy for them, they need to go to jail and pay a hefty fine. I can only speak for myself but I'd also say NRA is more for this than against.
Non-prosecution of firearms laws isn't new and goes back several administrations. We need a non-political Justice Department but frankly I can't remember it not being political for decades.

[Kheldarson]

.
Technically Sarah Brady "straw purchased" a firearm. She bought a rifle for her son as a present. In filling out the 4473 it specially asks if the firearm is for you the buyer, if you answer no then the FFL holder is supposed to deny the sale.

Incorrect. The form asks if you are the buyer. Even if you intend to gift it, you are still the purchaser. But if you're being given money to make the purchase for someone else, then you're not the buyer.