All sorts of examples I can think up that demonstrate how contradictory federal firearms laws are. If you have a stoner 19 year old son living in your basement, he can't but a handgun from a FFL for two reasons, neither of which disqualify him from owning a handgun in Georgia. You can sell or gift him a handgun, and no laws are broken.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Straw Purchase Question
- Thread starter Sigo
- Start date
If "stoner" means a person who regularly and habitually uses marijuana (which is still illegal, always, for everybody, per federal law), that stoner is a prohibited person.
Can't buy or even possess any smokeless-powder gun, or ammo.
Can't buy or even possess any smokeless-powder gun, or ammo.
AT this point, their 'laws' don't mean crap to me. THEIR criminals don't adhere to them; why should I?
Yes, I misspoke, it still doesn;'t create a straw purchase,
Why should you? I donno... maybe to avoid spending $50,000 in legal fees to unsuccessfully try to keep you out of Federal prison.
And to avoid you going to prison and having a very active, but unwelcome, sex life for the next 10 years (no , make that 7 + 3 more on supervised release).
Oh geez..... okay.... sheesh....
Even when we don't agree with laws, we have the options to adhere to them or be punished if we do not. Our livelihood can be taken away and our freedom if we refuse to follow the laws. That doesn't mean we agree with them. The only fix is to elect government officials that agree with us that can change the laws. Convince your neighbors to vote the same way and maybe we can have laws that make more sense and that punishes real criminals and not created ones by wording.
Rosewood
Rosewood
We did do the right-route. We elected a President we actually wanted and got one (by theft) who can't even figure out who keeps crapping in his pants every day - doddering old, senile fool that he is. In case anyone here hasn't figured it out yet, this government is operating on the classic model of fascism.....ordering private business and other NGO entities to enforce their political will for actions on which they couldn't possibly win in a Constitutional case. Case in point - vaccine mandate. USPS EXEMPT, Congress and their aides EXEMPT, and other actions being contemplated like withholding medicare / medicaid money to hospitals if they don't have their workers vaccinated. No legal constitutional basis whatsoever, but they're doing it and daring us to litigate back, by which time they'll have accomplished their will.... No thanks. Their "straw purchase" laws? Screw them.... Prove it...
A lot of confusion is around what 'bought' means to different people. Break it down like this, there are three people in a purchase (not three actual persons, just three roles):
The person fronting the money to buy the firearm
The person completing the 4473
The person to take possession of the firearm
The story above about the father and son is a straw purchase. The son was fronting the money so that the dad could complete the 4473 so that the son could take possession. In this case the son is the actual buyer but the dad is completing the paperwork.
The story of the guy buying it for his nephew is NOT a straw purchase. He was fronting the money so that he could complete the 4473, so that the nephew could take possession.
Wife using her husband's credit card (as an authorized user) to then gift it to him could very well be considered a straw purchase. I know CTS has provided the newsletter clip above but I just want to point out that you cannot take those two lines in isolation. A wife can use her husband's credit card to buy a weapon. She can also gift him a weapon. She cannot use his card and also gift the weapon to him.
The person fronting the money to buy the firearm
The person completing the 4473
The person to take possession of the firearm
The story above about the father and son is a straw purchase. The son was fronting the money so that the dad could complete the 4473 so that the son could take possession. In this case the son is the actual buyer but the dad is completing the paperwork.
The story of the guy buying it for his nephew is NOT a straw purchase. He was fronting the money so that he could complete the 4473, so that the nephew could take possession.
Wife using her husband's credit card (as an authorized user) to then gift it to him could very well be considered a straw purchase. I know CTS has provided the newsletter clip above but I just want to point out that you cannot take those two lines in isolation. A wife can use her husband's credit card to buy a weapon. She can also gift him a weapon. She cannot use his card and also gift the weapon to him.
