Comments on: More on Bloomberg’s suit

By: Heartless Libertarian

Heartless Libertarian — Tue, 16 May 2006 21:03:27 +0000

From what I’ve managed to find on the topic at the ATF site, a ’straw purchase’ can be made either to transfer the weapon to a prohibited person, or to hide the identity of the actual purchaser (ie, make it so the .gov don’t know you have the gun.) This may be the interpretation that the NYC Anti-Freedom Brigade is banking on.

My question with regards to the publicity stunt lawsuit is what exactly is their basis for saying the dealer broke the law? If the person who filled out the form kept the gun, then no law was broken, because they were, in fact, the actual purchaser (and if the intent was to entrap the gun store, I’m betting that’s what they did.) If they gave it to their partner, then they broke the law themselves, as noted above, by lying on the 4473. And if they used NYC money for it, then the NYC government should be charged with conspiracy to violate federal firearms laws.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Tue, 16 May 2006 20:06:15 +0000

The form 4473, filled out by the purchaser, specifically asks the question “Are you the actual buyer of the firearm” or something extremely close to that. It does NOT ask you if you intend to give the firearm as a gift – just whether or not you are the “actual buyer”.

If someone (involved in a state-run sting operation or not) fills out and signs a fraudulent statement on a form 4473, are they not committing a crime of fraud?

Notice also the lack of any mention of the 2nd amendment (remember that annoying little trifle? No, I suppose not.) or of the fact that areas with relatively few gun laws have less crime, while areas like NY and DC, with relatively high numbers of gun laws, have higher violent crime rates. The victims should sue the government that disarmed them.

The whole “sting” operation and the report is a smoke and mirrors trick, designed to deflect attention away from the pathetic failures of their socialist policies, their massive corruption, and their direct, willful violation of the Constitution of the United States. They are thus, vehemently anti American. Yes I will say it, and I will repeat it.

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Tue, 16 May 2006 18:17:12 +0000

It amazes me how many people do not realize that it is not a strawman purchase even if purchased for another as long as that other is not a prohibited person. My wife was once refused a purchase of a present for me because the FFL dealer thought that constituted a straw man purchase, although I am not a prohibited person. Sadly he knew I wasn’t because he had accepted mail order guns for fee for me previously.

By: ChareltonHest

ChareltonHest — Tue, 16 May 2006 14:51:40 +0000

We can turn this into our favor, and use it for a call againt background-checks.

C.H.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 16 May 2006 13:14:00 +0000

Aughtsix, whoops. Corrected that.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 16 May 2006 13:09:57 +0000

I’m not a lawyer, so if this is a stupid question just let me know.

What gives NYC the power to run a sting aimed at finding violations of federal law?

By: AughtSix

AughtSix — Tue, 16 May 2006 13:07:39 +0000

Wouldn’t it be the interested man who is most likely the prohibited person. (Or acting prohibited person?) If they’re both legal, I bet it can be somewhat confusing… My wife and I once ended up in a similar situation… my wife was buying me a gun for a Christmas present. The dealer said that since I would “own” it, I should fill out the form, and my wife paid. (From the same checking account, not that that really mattered, just the principle of a present)

I doubt this describes what the PIs did, and it sure sounds like they broke the law. But I wouldn’t be suprised if there are some details that make what they did not illegal.

And a state/city (not sure if NYS got involved) acting outside their juristiction sure does sound wrong.