Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Straw purchase? (179 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fair enough. (8+ / 0-)

    What if he just bought a firearm from a dealer fairly recently?

    Though, if memory serves, the law is if you KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to someone who can't own one. So if I sold a firearm to my international jewel thief father (who was convicted of grand theft diamond, years before I was born) and my knowledge was such that he COULD own a firearm, I would not be held culpable.

    I pose the scenario so I could feel ya out as to if YOU think it should be illegal or legal. Right now, both the scenario above the jump and the one I proposed in the previous comment are illegal. Hence the SCOTUS case. Should they both be that way.

    •  I don't think the diary one should be illegal. (10+ / 0-)

      If it is, that seems like sloppily worded laws that prevent more than they were intended to.

      I'm leery of the second, unless there's some specific way short of a brand new background check to quantify 'knowing'.  As you suggested 'he bought one fairly recently', I'd say 'define that in the law'.  Make it so you can sell it to him within, say, 30 days or 60 days of having passed a background check.  Some arbitrary number, but one that is sharply outlined in law.  Laws shouldn't be 'fuzzy'.  It should be straightforward as to whether or not a given law is being broken, not left up to lawyers to fight out whether or not it can be 'interpreted' as legal or illegal.

      If 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', then you as a citizen shouldn't be required to seek legal counsel to interpret whether or not you're breaking a law if you actually know what that law says.

    •  So I was right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, DavidMS, KVoimakas

      I voted illegal, but should be legal. There ought to be familial exemptions.  Same could be said about a wife or child (of age), too.  Perhaps they have a PTC, but have never purchased a handgun.  Then, they carry the gun legally, but now "own" (possession) it without the current NCIS.  And taking it a step further, what type of liability will you face should that person be forced to use that firearm for self defense, as the buyer who circumvented the legal purchase process?

      •  Should SCOTUS complain ATF to amend the 4473 (0+ / 0-)

        so a purchaser can disclose that they are buying a gun for someone else.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 09:56:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think the easiest fix is to reword the 4473. (3+ / 0-)

      Here is the form.  

      Change question 11a from:  Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?  Warning:  You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.  If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.  (See Instructions for question 11.a.)  Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and my proceed to question 11.b.  
       Bold in the original.  

      To:  Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?  Warning:  You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.  If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.  You must transfer the firearm to that person via an FFL.  (See Instructions for question 11.a.)  Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and my proceed to question 11.b.  Bold is my proposed fix.  

      It would clarify the law and make it harder to inadvertently violate.  Its a technical violation but not a threat to public safety.  I hope congress corrects it but won't get my hopes up.  

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 08:26:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You don't know whether he told the truth on (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, coquiero

      on the 4473.

      That's the central issue in this case. Whether it's material to lie on the form 4473. Another issue, IMO, is whether ATF rule making procedures were correct when they developed Form 4473.

      It's good to see kossacks studying cases that are in play. SCOTUS has accepted several cases involving Federal law this term, and it will be good to get some post-Heller guidance.

      Oral arguments for this case are in January. I encourage everyone to read up on this case as there are many interesting threads in the story. I just handed all my notes off to TRPchicago, who is writing a diary about it. We'll send you an invite when we publish.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 09:53:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site