Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/21/2003 4:22:08 PM EDT
What do you think?
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:23:41 PM EDT
Whats a straw purchase?
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:37:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 4:37:59 PM EDT by Andreuha]
Depends on the felony... pre-meditated murderers should get MANY years for posessing any firearm, but someone who, for example, commited low-level credit-card fraud should still be able to own.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:38:43 PM EDT
The premise of the argument is flawed. A "straw purchase" is a method of circumventing law. They can't obtain it legally, so someone else gets it for them. If the problem is that minor offenses bar people from obtaining a firearm, then the laws barring them need to be changed. They is no rational line of thought that could defend a "straw purchase" as being legal or just. The fundamental question is whether or not the person who ultimately owns the weapon has the legal ability to obtain the weapon. That's it.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:39:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:39:45 PM EDT
It's how I got my .45. Straw purchase is legal in PA as long as it's between a parent and their kid, or a grandparent. So, since it was illegal for me to purchase a HK USP .45 at 20, but not illegal for me to be transferred one or to posses one, I ordered the handgun from my dealer, I talked to him about it one several occasions while it was in transit, and then on the day it came my father filled out the yellow form, turned and handed the .45 to me. He purchased it, and then transferred it to me. Tada.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:46:55 PM EDT
Straw men purchases are legal in real estate. If straw men purchases were legal for guns you would pretty much have to admit there was no control over firearm ownership which I have trouble believing is a good thing.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:34:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wolfpack: ALL firearms laws should be revoked.
View Quote
I thought I had something witty to say, but I forgot... [:D]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:53:14 PM EDT
No... Straw purchases should not be legal... After all (a) if you want to buy w/o paper trail, purchase in-state via private sale, and (b) if you commit a felony, you loose your right to vote as well as your right to bear arms... It's further punishment for your crime...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:04:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Spade: He purchased it, and then transferred it to me. Tada.
View Quote
Funny, that's how I got all my HKs! Thanks, Ma! [:)]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:26:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 9:28:47 PM EDT by cc48510]
Unfortunately, that is not what the ATF believes. According to the ATF, buying a gun for someone else (other than as a gift)...even if they are eligible to own it, is a straw purchase. For example, a certain county has a 5-day waiting period. I went to a gun show on a Saturday and saw something I wanted to buy. But, I flying out the next day and wouldn't be back for several months. I could not get it because: 1) I wasn't going to be in town in 5 days; 2) The dealer couldn't legally ship it to me, even if I paid for it, filled out the 4473, and passed NICS in person; 3) I couldn't have a friend pick it up, if my name was on the 4473; and 4) I couldn't have a friend buy it and send it to me, because the ATF considers that a "Straw Purchase." BTW, I think we should allow almost anyone (including felons) to own a gun. If you are so dangerous that you can't own a gun, you shouldn't be on the streets. If you are convicted of murder, rape, armed robbery, child molesting, kidnapping, carjacking, etc...you should be given a date with a length of rope and a tall oak tree, not time in prison (at taxpayer expense) and life without civil rights.
Originally Posted By 223-Buckaroo: The premise of the argument is flawed. A "straw purchase" is a method of circumventing law. They can't obtain it legally, so someone else gets it for them. If the problem is that minor offenses bar people from obtaining a firearm, then the laws barring them need to be changed. They is no rational line of thought that could defend a "straw purchase" as being legal or just. The fundamental question is whether or not the person who ultimately owns the weapon has the legal ability to obtain the weapon. That's it.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:34:00 PM EDT
Amen cc
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:45:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A: No... Straw purchases should not be legal... After all (a) if you want to buy w/o paper trail, purchase in-state via private sale, and (b) if you commit a felony, you loose your right to vote as well as your right to bear arms... It's further punishment for your crime...
View Quote
Your wife was gonna buy you a Barrett .50 M82A1 from my Group Buy for your christmas present but I informed her that that would be a "straw purchase" and showed her this thread. I'm sure the coffee maker you are getting instead will be almost as much fun.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:55:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:35:33 PM EDT
Can't believe 'illegal' is getting ONLY ~42% And as for this -
Originally Posted By Andreuha: Depends on the felony... pre-meditated murderers should get MANY years for posessing any firearm, but someone who, for example, commited low-level credit-card fraud should still be able to own.
View Quote
screw that - I'll take all the crime deterrence I can get - any class of Felony (INCLUDING Winona Ryder's 'innocent' shoplifting) - NO Guns for You! You want guns? Don't break the law!
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:45:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CerebralAssassin: Whats a straw purchase?
View Quote
SGtar15
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:55:10 PM EDT
I know several people who were quite wild when they were younger. But now they have settled down and "grown up" so to speak. They have families, jobs with lots of responsibilities and so on. I'm sure these people have commited acts in their life that would be considered "felonies" if they had been caught. And when I look at my friends, with their 3 year old daughters and how they dote on their family, I just can't think of a reason why they should be denied the right to own the weapon of their choice. George Bush used to do cocaine. Should his RKBA be revoked, or do you guys overlook such "youthful indiscretions?" I'd love to see dear old George Bush go to a gun dealer and fail the NICS check. That would crack me the fuck up. "Laura, dear, AIM Surplus has a great deal on AKs this week!" "But George, you know if I bought another gun for you, that would be a straw purchase, and a federal crime. Shouldn't the President of the United States be setting an example of following the laws?!?!" "But honnnney! Laura! It's a Romanian AK for only $300!!!!" -Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 6:54:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2003 7:15:42 AM EDT by cc48510]
LOL. There are alot of stupid laws, many of which are felonies. [b]18 USC 17 §331[/b] makes it a federal felony to deface, mutilate, or destroy coins. [b]18 USC 17 §333[/b] makes it a federal crime to deface, mutilate, or destroy paper money. [b]18 USC 17 §336[/b] makes it a federal crime to use anything other than cash for less than $1. [b]18 USC 45 §486[/b] makes it a federal felony to make coins from precious metal if you intend to use them in place of cash. [b]18 USC 33 §701[/b] makes it a federal crime to possess any insigna of any government agency. [b]18 USC 33 §702[/b] makes it a federal crime to wear BDUs if you are not in the military. [b]18 USC 33 §711[/b] makes it a federal crime to use Smoky the Bear or any of his slogans except as authorized by the Forestry folks. [b]18 USC 33 §711a[/b] Same as 711, but for Woodsy Owl. [b]18 USC 50 §1083[/b] makes it a federal crime to transport people to a gambling ship in international waters. It also provides that the ship (in international waters) be seized by the Federal Government. [b]18 USC 71 §1461[/b] makes it a federal felony to mail pornography or anything that might cause a person to want to commit a crime. [b]18 USC 71 §1462[/b] makes it a federal felony to import pornography. [b]18 USC 71 §1463[/b] makes it a federal felony to write curse words or epithets on a post card or the outside of an envelope. [b]18 USC 71 §1466[/b] makes it a federal felony to sell pornography. [b]18 USC 71 §1467[/b] provides that illegal porn be seized by the feds.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:01:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By CerebralAssassin: Whats a straw purchase?
View Quote
SGtar15
View Quote
I'm goin to have to take up for CA on this one. At least he admitted that he didn't know anything about what was being discussed.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:17:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen: What do you think?
View Quote
One word...Columbine. The shotgun used was done through a straw purchase. They're illegal as hell, and anybody that does it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no grey area here. If you do not have the right to own a gun (ie: felon, wife beater, etc.), that's it. It's your own fault for putting yourself into that position.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:19:15 AM EDT
Any [red]NON-VOILENT[/red] felon should have all voting and gun ownership rights restored immediately upon release from prison. You've done the time, paid the price society required of you, let's get on with life. Any [red]VIOLENT[/red] felon, meaning anybody who used any kind of weapon during the commission of the felony crime, should never get their gun ownership rights back.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:34:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By bvmjethead: Any [red]VIOLENT[/red] felon, meaning anybody who used any kind of weapon during the commission of the felony crime, should never get their gun ownership rights back.
View Quote
I agree with this one. The reason is that they should be pushing up daisies.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:42:03 AM EDT
I agree with BVM on non-violent offenders. BTW, the G-Man, being a convicted felon, can't legally own firearms, but I'll bet Mrs. Liddy has quite a collection!
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:48:30 AM EDT
If Sarah Brady can do it, why can't I?
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 8:29:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Originally Posted By bvmjethead: Any [red]VIOLENT[/red] felon, meaning anybody who used any kind of weapon during the commission of the felony crime, should never get their gun ownership rights back.
View Quote
I agree with this one. The reason is that they should be pushing up daisies.
View Quote
I don't think that anyone who has been released from jail and is no longer on parole should be denied rights such as voting and owning firearms. If they were still a serious threat to society, they should either be in jail or dead. Making it illegal for them to own guns just means they'll steal one if they want it, and they may very well hurt or kill someone in the process. If we're really worried about what they're going to do with a gun, maybe we shouldn't put them back on the street! (Now [i]under[/i] it, that's another story. [}:D])
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 8:47:44 AM EDT
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. No exceptions.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 8:57:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 11:57:43 AM EDT
Sorry guys, but I gotta add another two cents. IMHO, [b]any felon[/b] should absolutely [b]NOT[/b] have the right to vote, or own a gun. That goes for anybody that's done time for murder, or anybody that's done time at a Federal Country Club prison. They have knowingly, negatively effected the lives of other law-abiding citizens. How would you feel if you had X amount of dollars invested in Company Y, and the people that run that company bankrupted it, leaving you penniless. Now say your spouse was so distraught over this, that they committed suicide. Should the person or persons that ran Company X get their privileges back when the get out of jail? I say no. I give no quarter to people that are stupid enough to comity felonies. They know what they're doing, they know it's wrong, and should be punished accordingly. This includes the loss of all voting, and gun ownership rights. Period.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 12:23:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RobarSR60: Sorry guys, but I gotta add another two cents. IMHO, [b]any felon[/b] should absolutely [b]NOT[/b] have the right to vote, or own a gun. That goes for anybody that's done time for murder, or anybody that's done time at a Federal Country Club prison. They have knowingly, negatively effected the lives of other law-abiding citizens. How would you feel if you had X amount of dollars invested in Company Y, and the people that run that company bankrupted it, leaving you penniless. Now say your spouse was so distraught over this, that they committed suicide. Should the person or persons that ran Company X get their privileges back when the get out of jail? I say no. I give no quarter to people that are stupid enough to comity felonies. They know what they're doing, they know it's wrong, and should be punished accordingly. [red]This includes the loss of all voting, and gun ownership rights.[/red] Period.
View Quote
How do you determine what rights or privileges are forfeited? What about driving a car? Do you still have freedom of speech? How do these restrictions make the world a better place? If a law does no good, it is not a good law.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:00:35 PM EDT
I want to sell my Marlin .30-30. I put an ad in th paper (see thme all the time). Some guy calls me up and buys it from me. Clean cut. Nice car. Pays with a check (with I'm assuming his name and address on it). He askes for a signed bill of sale from me. I give him one and off he goes. Straw purchase or private sale?
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:13:20 PM EDT
Does the idea of respect for law and the judgment of the representatives we send to legislatures matter to anyone. At common law, which everyone seems to love to quote so selectively, you lost all your property and rights. Your family couldn't inherit. Often you were hanged. It didn't matter if you were in or out of the can. It may make sense to restore these rights to non-violent felons, but in most states all felons can get their rights restored by applying to get their civil rights restored after some period of being a good citizen following release from jail. The burden was on them to show they're reformed. (The ATF is supposed to offer a similar procedure for those that can't apply for this, but Congress has not funded it). If you do a crime, the burden should definitely be on you to show you're reformed, and laying low in prison is not nearly enough to showt hat you've gotten your shit together. While with ordinary people the burden's on the govt. to take away our liberties--i.e., innocent until proven guilty--for those who've been convicted it should be the opposite.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:13:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: Your wife was gonna buy you a Barrett .50 M82A1 from my Group Buy for your christmas present but I informed her that that would be a "straw purchase" and showed her this thread. I'm sure the coffee maker you are getting instead will be almost as much fun.
View Quote
[ROFL] [ROFL] [ROFL] [ROFL] [ROFL] [ROFL] [ROFL]
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:46:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: I want to sell my Marlin .30-30. I put an ad in th paper (see thme all the time). Some guy calls me up and buys it from me. Clean cut. Nice car. Pays with a check (with I'm assuming his name and address on it). He askes for a signed bill of sale from me. I give him one and off he goes. Straw purchase or private sale?
View Quote
That would be a private sale. A straw purchase is when one person buys a gun for someone that is not allowed by law, to posses it.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:59:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist: I don't think that anyone who has been released from jail and is no longer on parole should be denied rights such as voting and owning firearms. If they were still a serious threat to society, they should either be in jail or dead. Making it illegal for them to own guns just means they'll steal one if they want it, and they may very well hurt or kill someone in the process. If we're really worried about what they're going to do with a gun, maybe we shouldn't put them back on the street!
View Quote
Your view of criminals is very rosy-eyed. Just because someone has "paid their debt", doesn't mean their rehabilitated. I'll say it again, no slack should be cut for these people. Be they violent or non-violent, they're still felons.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 4:24:43 AM EDT
Its also a felony to write epithets on a post card...to deface US coins...to mail pornography by USPS...Should you lose your RKBA for those ???
Originally Posted By RobarSR60:
Originally Posted By fizassist: I don't think that anyone who has been released from jail and is no longer on parole should be denied rights such as voting and owning firearms. If they were still a serious threat to society, they should either be in jail or dead. Making it illegal for them to own guns just means they'll steal one if they want it, and they may very well hurt or kill someone in the process. If we're really worried about what they're going to do with a gun, maybe we shouldn't put them back on the street!
View Quote
Your view of criminals is very rosy-eyed. Just because someone has "paid their debt", doesn't mean their rehabilitated. I'll say it again, no slack should be cut for these people. Be they violent or non-violent, they're still felons.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 5:38:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RobarSR60:
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: I want to sell my Marlin .30-30. I put an ad in th paper (see thme all the time). Some guy calls me up and buys it from me. Clean cut. Nice car. Pays with a check (with I'm assuming his name and address on it). He askes for a signed bill of sale from me. I give him one and off he goes. Straw purchase or private sale?
View Quote
That would be a private sale. A straw purchase is when one person buys a gun for someone that is not allowed by law, to posses it.
View Quote
Knowingly? I'ld say illegal. But in a private sale who bears the burden of determing who's legaly able?
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 8:07:18 AM EDT
The law says you have to either know or have cause to believe that he is prohibited. For example, clean-shaven buisnessman...doesn't say anything about having a record...its legal. But, if the person mentions doing time...you can't do the sale. I'm not sure where the burden is on looks. But, I would never sell a gun to a gun wearing gang paraphanalia, a FUBU shirt, or a skull cap.
Originally Posted By Halfcocked:
Originally Posted By RobarSR60:
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: I want to sell my Marlin .30-30. I put an ad in th paper (see thme all the time). Some guy calls me up and buys it from me. Clean cut. Nice car. Pays with a check (with I'm assuming his name and address on it). He askes for a signed bill of sale from me. I give him one and off he goes. Straw purchase or private sale?
View Quote
That would be a private sale. A straw purchase is when one person buys a gun for someone that is not allowed by law, to posses it.
View Quote
Knowingly? I'ld say illegal. But in a private sale who bears the burden of determing who's legaly able?
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 8:27:23 AM EDT
[b]Straw purchases should be illegal.[/b] No doubt about it!
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 8:37:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RobarSR60:
Originally Posted By fizassist: I don't think that anyone who has been released from jail and is no longer on parole should be denied rights such as voting and owning firearms. If they were still a serious threat to society, they should either be in jail or dead. Making it illegal for them to own guns just means they'll steal one if they want it, and they may very well hurt or kill someone in the process. If we're really worried about what they're going to do with a gun, maybe we shouldn't put them back on the street!
View Quote
Your view of criminals is very rosy-eyed. Just because someone has "paid their debt", doesn't mean their rehabilitated. I'll say it again, no slack should be cut for these people. Be they violent or non-violent, they're still felons.
View Quote
My view is hardly rosy-eyed! I think a lot of released felons are real scum-of-the-earth types. I object to restricting their ownership of firearms on two grounds: 1) If they're that much of a risk to society, they shouldn't be on the street! Keep them in jail or put them in the ground. Either one is fine with me. 2) If they're intent on shooting someone, getting (or making!) a weapon illegally isn't much of a problem. This is just like gun control in general: the ones who obey the law aren't the problem!
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 8:40:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist:
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Originally Posted By bvmjethead: Any [red]VIOLENT[/red] felon, meaning anybody who used any kind of weapon during the commission of the felony crime, should never get their gun ownership rights back.
View Quote
I agree with this one. The reason is that they should be pushing up daisies.
View Quote
I don't think that anyone who has been released from jail and is no longer on parole should be denied rights such as voting and owning firearms. If they were still a serious threat to society, they should either be in jail or dead. Making it illegal for them to own guns just means they'll steal one if they want it, and they may very well hurt or kill someone in the process. If we're really worried about what they're going to do with a gun, maybe we shouldn't put them back on the street! (Now [i]under[/i] it, that's another story. [}:D])
View Quote
I agree 100%...Either they should be allowed to own a firearms, keep them in prison or put them to death! BigDozer66 "Whiskey for my men, Beer for my horses!"
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 10:16:31 AM EDT
a guy that worked for me a couple of years ago year had a speeding ticket that was reduced to driving school and he had to pay for the class and court cost. he went to the class but failed to pay all but $50. anyway he did not think much about it untill he tried to buy a rifle at wal-mart. he did not pass the background check because a misdemenor warrant was issued for faliure to pay. this kept him from buying a new gun but in no way affects his right to own the firearms that he already purchased. he cleared up the warrant problem but still can not get a background check to go through quickly. he always had his wife purchase his firearms after getting tired of having to wait till the next day to get approval.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 10:21:04 AM EDT
/18 USC 33 §702 makes it a federal crime to wear BDUs if you are not in the military./ if thats true than I'd think the majority of us would be in jail right now.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 10:29:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RobarSR60:
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: I want to sell my Marlin .30-30. I put an ad in th paper (see thme all the time). Some guy calls me up and buys it from me. Clean cut. Nice car. Pays with a check (with I'm assuming his name and address on it). He askes for a signed bill of sale from me. I give him one and off he goes. Straw purchase or private sale?
View Quote
That would be a private sale. A straw purchase is when one person buys a gun for someone that is not allowed by law, to posses it.
View Quote
That is not correct. [b]A straw purchase is: A purchase of any firearm with the INTENT of hiding the identity of the actual purchaser.[/b] Example: Person A buys a gun for person B for the purpose of protecting person B's identity. That is a "straw purchase". In theory, this has nothing to do with whether person "B" is legally able to own such a weapon. However, proving intent is very difficult to do if you can't show a reason why the identity hiding was done. Therefore, the "straw purchase" statute is only enforceable when person "B" is prohibited from owning firearms.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 10:45:40 AM EDT
My ar was bought with a type of straw purchase. I didn't have the full money at the time so my dad bought it for me. CRC
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 10:52:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC: My ar was bought with a type of straw purchase. I didn't have the full money at the time so my dad bought it for me. CRC
View Quote
Unless he did it with the intent of hiding your identity is was not a straw purchase.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:16:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By photoman: /18 USC 33 §702 makes it a federal crime to wear BDUs if you are not in the military./ if thats true than I'd think the majority of us would be in jail right now.
View Quote
Its one of those laws, not normally enforced, but still on the books:
18 USC 33 §702. - Uniform of armed forces and Public Health Service[/b] Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:18:49 AM EDT
My absolute view on this is everyone should have the right to own firearms, even violent convicted felons. If they are released from prison, then they have served their time for the crime and payed their debt. Is their life any less important than yours? And yes, I understand that violent felons will most likely commit another violent crime...but do you really think banning guns (for just them) is going to stop them? I will be very suprised if anyone here can actually answer that with yes. What is needed is to hold people responsible for their actions. Let felons buy guns to shoot and defend themselves with, but if they use a gun to commit another crime have a two strikes and you are out rule and lock them up permanently as they have shown repeatedly that they are violent, are not responsible, and will threaten the lives of others. I can't believe that people here actually think that creating a class of people that can't own weapons or certain kinds of weapons is completely acceptable. That attitude will eventually be used and turned against you even though you haven't committed any crime...oh sh*t that's already happend with the AW ban. Now please restate your arguments for this and justify creating a "class" of people who should not be trusted.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 2:50:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SWIRE: My absolute view on this is everyone should have the right to own firearms, even violent convicted felons. If they are released from prison, then they have served their time for the crime and payed their debt. Is their life any less important than yours? And yes, I understand that violent felons will most likely commit another violent crime...but do you really think banning guns (for just them) is going to stop them? I will be very suprised if anyone here can actually answer that with yes. What is needed is to hold people responsible for their actions. Let felons buy guns to shoot and defend themselves with, but if they use a gun to commit another crime have a two strikes and you are out rule and lock them up permanently as they have shown repeatedly that they are violent, are not responsible, and will threaten the lives of others. I can't believe that people here actually think that creating a class of people that can't own weapons or certain kinds of weapons is completely acceptable. That attitude will eventually be used and turned against you even though you haven't committed any crime...oh sh*t that's already happend with the AW ban. Now please restate your arguments for this and justify creating a "class" of people who should not be trusted.
View Quote
What about those unfortunate ex-felons with 20 year old records who go hunting only to be busted for being in possession of a gun?
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 5:54:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BigDozer66: "Whiskey for my men, Beer for my horses!"
View Quote
I love that song...
Top Top