Straw purchase article in today's paper

[poppy]

Front page article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer: "Local women stand by their gunmen." It is a straw purchase article, which only shows and talks about handguns, so I picked this place to post.

As always, they get something wrong. In the very first sentence, they talk about age 18 and forget about age 21 for handguns. The sub-title is "Who can and can't buy a gun." "Under federal law, anyone over the age of 18 can buy a gun, with nine exceptions:" They fail to list the handgun exception.

They specifically mention one woman who "illegally bought 24 semiautomatic handguns" most at one particular shop over a 2 1/2 year period. They cite records showing that she "bought cheap, small-caliber handguns" and write: "For instance, she picked out a $120 Hi-Point 9mm"

Now the gun shop that is mentioned has been in business for a long time. I have been in the shop and talked to the owner a number of times. He seems like a decent guy. So my question for you shop owners out there is, if a woman buys 15-20 "cheap" pistols over a span of 30 months, what do you think she is doing with them? Do you care? What can/should you do to help prevent straw purchases?

I believe inexpensive handguns should be available and I don't necessarily believe there should be a limit, etc. But don't we in the gun world have a responsibility to help prevent guns falling into the wrong hands? poppy

[Majic]

Even with a one-gun-a-month law in effect no law has been broken. So what's the problem? Where is the proof that there actually was a straw purchase and not someone's assumption?

[rchernandez]

This article?

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051211/EDIT03/512110356/-1/newstamika

[Vex]

I have another possible theory: She is purchasing all the Hi-points in the world so they won't be on the streets! She's not a criminal, she's a Saint! Saint Shawanda Bonita "O-G Tru Playa" Watkins!

[poppy]

Majic Even with a one-gun-a-month law in effect no law has been broken. So what's the problem? Where is the proof that there actually was a straw purchase and not someone's assumption?
Well, we don't have a one gun a month law here in Ohio or Kentucky. "She then sold them at a profit to people who couldn't buy guns themselves. Three of those weapons turned up at crime scenes." These crime guns were traced back to her. She is now serving a 2 yr. prison term. She was conficted of "dealing firearms without a license and making false statements to buy a firearm intended for another person." poppy

[poppy]

This article?

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d.../-1/newstamika
No. This one http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage poppy

[AJ Dual]

Actually, it was a pretty gun-neutral article. I'd write the editor with praise for the story.

The gist of my letter would be:

It's about time they start doing what we've been calling for all along.

Enforcing the gun laws we already have...

As to dealers, one store here just on the edge of Milwaukee was the #1 store for all ATF gun traces, in the country for a few years. They're still in business since they followed all the laws and filled out all the forms, and kept clean books. However, they voluntarily stopped selling all the Jennings, Bryco, Davis stuff...

I do think that government action to ban inexpensive firearms is unwarranted, wrong, evil, and is just plain "economic discrimination". However, should the marketplace and dealers start to eschew certain firearms that turn up in a higher proportion of crimes, so be it.

For the legitamate "poor" person in need of self defense, there are plenty of quality, but still inexpensive, options availible. Some of them are:

- Wal-Mart or mass-retailer Mossberg and Remington shotguns, arguably better for home defense (long gun hittablity + power) than any handgun. Those are often well under $200 on sale.

- Eastern European milsurp pistols like the Makarov and others abound for under $200.

- Police trade-in Glocks and revolvers that still have lots of life left in them.

Those are but a few economical firearms availible on the market. And all are better than the the trash put out by the "ring of fire" companies. You just need to be willing to expend the effort to do some research, or get some advice from the legitamate "gun culture" to find out about the alternatives.

The shop owner in Cincinatti can't be blamed if his store was busy enough that the same woman coming in every couple of weeks wouldn't have been remembered, especialy if he still runs his business largely off of paper, and different salespeople (if there's more than just him) waited on her at different times. 15-20 guns in 30 months is still less than a one gun a month average. Going by each store, it's actualy less than that since they all went through two or three different stores, so it's not so strange she shouldn't be remembered. Heck, that's probably about how often "we" show up at our local gun shops, isn't it?

After I had my first "real job", but before I was married with kids, every 3-4 months for a new "toy" was about my average. :)

Not anymore. :(

Of course, when I was a gun buyin' fool, I kept them... (If I knew what marriage and kids would do to my collecting, I'd have bought 10 times as much to prepare for the "long winter"... LOL!)

Also, it's a fine line. While a gun store has the right to refuse service to anyone, and the ATF actualy encourages/empowers FFL's to do this, one that refuses to sell to women or minorities could just as easily get a hatchet job done on it in the media for being "racist" and "sexist"...

[ArmedBear]

The original crime scene was the engineer's office where the drawings for the Hi Point were done...:p

The amazing thing is that the Hi Point passes the expensive nuisance safety testing that's supposed to keep "junk guns" out of California.

Now here's what's interesting, though. People who can't buy guns themselves are usually people who have convictions. The people she sold to are apparently still pursuing a life of violent crime, despite having done time. Maybe some different sentencing would help more than gun laws. Maybe.

And what a dumbass! If she wanted to make money as a gunrunner, she should have been smarter about it. Crime doesn't pay unless it's organized.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that gunrunners are okay. But it seems to me that criminals find SOME way to get a gun, even in England, where they're supposed to have no handguns at all. The cops there estimate that the number of handguns has gone way UP, not down, since the ban, and now they're almost ALL in the hands of violent criminals.

[waterhouse]

I might think twice about 24 guns in 30 months, but just barely. I have guys walk out with 2 or 3 handguns at once and I don't worry about them. I remember most of these cases because they make us fill out extra paperwork in triplicate and mail them off. If she bought them one at a time I'm not sure I'd even notice.

[Vern Humphrey]

I might think twice about 24 guns in 30 months, but just barely. I have guys walk out with 2 or 3 handguns at once and I don't worry about them. I remember most of these cases because they make us fill out extra paperwork in triplicate and mail them off. If she bought them one at a time I'm not sure I'd even notice.

How could you? Unless you went back through your entire book every time, for every customer. You're not required to do that by law, and as has been pointed out, she broke no law by buying the guns -- only when she sold them. So if you did go back over every transaction, for every new puchase, and you found someone who bought a lot of guns in the last year, what could you do about it?

[waterhouse]

I could refuse to sell to them in the future, and I could call the ATF and let them know that I had a customer I suspected of buying guns for criminals and that perhaps they should look into it. Or I could continue to quite legally sell them guns, make my profit, and make sure all of my paper work was in order.

As you said, the odds of me noticing this purchase pattern in the first place would be incredibly small. I'm not saying what I would or wouldn't do, but those would be my options (at least the ones that come to mind.)

[Car Knocker]

I've noticed that some dealers have computerized their records (in addition to the parer 4473) and can bring up all the previous purchases by a buyer.

[Steve C]

What is being described in the article isn't really a Straw purchase but a legal purchase by an eligible buyer who then illegally transfers the weapon to an individual they know is ineligible owner. A straw purchase is where the seller, i.e. gun dealer or store, knowingly transfers a firearm to an ineligible person but allows an eligible person to sign the paperwork. The intent of the straw man must be known to the seller. This is a problem for law enforcement to handle as these women are criminals with knowing criminal intent. The 10 year sentence can be for each instance so these women could face 100 years or more in prison for transferring 10 firearms illegally. Perhaps if these women get the maximum and its publicized then others will think twice before doing something similar.

The part about the guys usually getting away with the “crime” is a little misleading. If any convicted criminal is found with a firearm in his/her possession they to are subject to the same 10 year sentence. Guns seldom just “appear” in crimes but are confiscated by police officers from suspects as evidence.

[poppy]

AJ The shop owner in Cincinatti can't be blamed if his store was busy enough that the same woman coming in every couple of weeks wouldn't have been remembered, especialy if he still runs his business largely off of paper, and different salespeople (if there's more than just him) waited on her at different times. 15-20 guns in 30 months is still less than a one gun a month average. Going by each store, it's actualy less than that since they all went through two or three different stores, so it's not so strange she shouldn't be remembered. Heck, that's probably about how often "we" show up at our local gun shops, isn't it?
This is a small shop and the owner is the primary "employee." Women do not frequent these kind of shops and it's hard for me to believe that she would not be remembered after the first 2 or 3 visits. These stores don't have thousands of customers who buy scores of cheap handguns.

Again the article reported that she bought a total of 24 handguns and that most were purchased at this one dealer. It is my assumption that "most" means between 15 and 20 at this one dealer. I worked at a gun store for about 3 years and I can remember every woman customer who bought a gun, because they were so rare. poppy

[ArmedBear]

AJ
This is a small shop and the owner is the primary "employee." Women do not frequent these kind of shops and it's hard for me to believe that she would not be remembered after the first 2 or 3 visits. These stores don't have thousands of customers who buy scores of cheap handguns.

Again the article reported that she bought a total of 24 handguns and that most were purchased at this one dealer. It is my assumption that "most" means between 15 and 20 at this one dealer. I worked at a gun store for about 3 years and I can remember every woman customer who bought a gun, because they were so rare. poppy

And she clearly wasn't a gun collector.:rolleyes:

[waterhouse]

A straw purchase is where the seller, i.e. gun dealer or store, knowingly transfers a firearm to an ineligible person but allows an eligible person to sign the paperwork. The intent of the straw man must be known to the seller.

Incorrect. If anyone buys a gun for another person, that buyer is making a straw purchase. The crime is lying on form 4473 when you answer "yes" to question 11.a ("Are you the actual buyer of the firearm . . .") If I sell a gun over the counter and don't know that you plan on giving it to someone else, it is still a straw purchase. As a dealer, I am not guilty of anything in this scenario, but the buyer is in trouble if they get caught. If i know about the straw purchase, than I as a dealer am also in trouble, but if I don't know about it the law is still being broken.

Straight from the ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide:

16. "STRAW PURCHASES"
Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases
from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to
acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser
to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the
actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used
because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That
is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other
prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a
resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises
is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw
purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee.
In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is
prohibited from acquiring the firearm.
In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making
false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of
the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's
residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the
straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or
caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm
under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware
of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual
purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the
licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the
licensee.
An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks
Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the
money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law
by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also
violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the
making of false statements on the form.
Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of
the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the
true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above
example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr.
Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form
4473. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of
straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the
actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the
dealer's records.

[poppy]

My original question remains. What can/should an FFL dealer do to help prevent straw purchases? Most of you seem to be saying that the gun shop owner did everything right, or at least followed the letter of the law.

There was no mention whether this women went into the gun shop alone or with someone else who could have been the actual buyer. I suspect that she went in alone with specific instructions and then sold the guns for a profit, hence the illegal dealer charge, in addition to the illegal transfer charge.

I am willing to give the dealer the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility that he "turned her in" quietly. I would like to believe that I would have done that.

Steve The part about the guys usually getting away with the “crime” is a little misleading.
Not really. What the article is talking about refers back to the title of the article. Some of these women don't rat out the buyers who's crime was that they purchased the guns illegally, and it hasn't yet turned up in another crime. So, unfortunately, even when the straw purchaser is caught, all of the guns are not rounded up. poppy

[ShelbyV8]

So, a woman comes in and wants to buy a gun. She is qualified to make the purchase. You say "No you bought a gun 2 weeks ago". Now she sues you for sexual discrimination and now she doesn't need to sell guns anymore.

[poppy]

If I am not mistaken, this particular gun show owner was at the last Wilmington gun show. There is a show this week end and I will be going. If I get the opportunity I will ask him a couple of questions about the article.

I guess I am not surprised, in general, with most of the responses here. There was no suggestion in the article that this dealer did anything wrong, but I am still asking from a moral perspective, from a responsible citizen perspective, from a prudent business perspective, could/should the dealer do anything?

I have witnessed what I believed to be a straw purchase at a gun show a number of years ago. A woman was buying a gun and her man was standing close buy acting nervous. The dealer seemed to be oblivious to the situation. I, of course, don't know if it was a straw purchase or not, but if a dealer is suspicious at all, what's wrong with pointing out to the "buyer" that it is a serious federal crime to lie on that form?

Don't we gunophiles have some obligation to help enforce the laws that we say are adequate to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? poppy

[carpettbaggerr]

I don't know, I can't remember ever seeing a woman in a gun shop. And a youngish woman buying a hi-point 3 or 4 or 5 months in a row? I'd really doubt she's a collector, wanting a matching set, wouldn't you?

Unless she was buying them in a very large store and dealing with a different clerk each time, someone should have noticed. You'd have to figure she's dealing illegally after 20+ hi-points.