Skip to main content

View Diary: What? Straw Purchase a Gun? Abramski v. US (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A Catch 22? (6+ / 0-)

    How do you figure?  Here's a common definition of a Catch 22:

    A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions
    There's nothing inherently illogical about the question on the form.  It's trying to prevent straw purchases by making buyers affirm, under penalty of prosecution, that they aren't buying the gun for someone else who may or may not be authorized to purchase the gun for himself.  

    You seem to think that it's a problem because only those who answer truthfully and in the affirmative are allowed to buy a gun.  But see, that's the whole point of the law in the first place.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:37:19 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  True. But Q11a's Yes/No, in reality, is no choice, (4+ / 0-)

      ... since the ATF accepts only one answer. As you say, that is indeed the point - to force a clear cut affirmative representation which can be prosecutable if it turns out to have been a lie.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:58:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, kind of like most applications. (3+ / 0-)

        You're expected to tell the truth, and there are negative consequences if you lie.

        You also have to qualify for whatever it is you're applying for, and if you don't, then your application will be rejected.  That's exactly what's going on here, so it's in no sense a "Catch 22."

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:21:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site