SCOTUS to hear Straw Purchase case

Anecdotally, I have a friend who is a Deputy US Marshall in a large Midwestern city with a high crime rate inner city. One of his duties is to review the overnight arrest reports and forward those that include violations of Federal laws to the US Attorney's office. He told me that over 80% of the arrest reports that included the use of a firearm, were forwarded to the US Attorney for violations of federal firearm laws. The US attorney brought federal charges against only the ones that the state refused to prosecute. My friend told me that those prosecuted at the federal level were people who had minor felony convictions from long ago, or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Statistically, Chicago has one of the lowest federal prosecution rates for federal gun laws in the nation. The US Attorney for that region does not charge hardly anyone with violations of federal gun laws, despite having one of the highest gun murder rates in the nation.

Click to expand...

Generally when it comes to "adopted" cases, meaning a case that is almost entirely the result of work done by the state and local LE agencies, the US Attorney's Office will "cherry pick" the cases for cases that are both the best in terms of getting long sentences, and in terms of those where there is a very high probability of getting a conviction if it goes to trial. It's that way for all federal adoptions, including gun cases. Sometimes DAs and local/state LE agencies complain about the feds taking their best cases.

For felon in possession of a firearm cases that means they prefer the cases where the defendant has a lengthy and violent criminal history, and/or the nature of the crimes are violent, as the those factors cause the longest sentences. The cases they like the most are where the person has 3 or more violent felony convictions which makes the defendant eligible for sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) (18USC924(e)). A conviction under the ACCA means the defendant will be sentenced to at least a mandatory minimum of 15 years, and is eligible for as much as a life sentence. They also like cases where the firearm was in furtherance of federal crimes of violence (carjacking, Hobbs Act, drug distribution, murder for hire conspiracies, etc), as those crimes also carry lengthy mandatory minimum sentences, under 18USC924(c). Possession in further of a federal crime of violence carries a 5 year mandatory minimum, brandishing is 7 years minimum, and discharge is 10 years minimum. Time for 924(c) conviction must be served consecutive to the time sentenced for the underlying crime of violence conviction.

Here are some examples of adopted cases:
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...ilty-of-federal-firearm-and-drug-charges.html

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...ck-or-treat-shooter-loses-federal-appeal.html

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...ison-for-illegal-firearm-drug-possession.html

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...bbery-of-a-pawn-shop-and-related-charges.html

Just a few examples, and none of those are cases that the state wouldn't be willing to prosecute, but they are cases where the best outcome is served by a federal prosecution.

Here's the links to the press releases for the Chicago Field Division, showing you're wrong about the US Attorney and gun cases in that region:
http://www.atf.gov/field/chicago/index.html

http://www.atf.gov/field/chicago/releases-2012.html

http://www.atf.gov/field/chicago/releases-2010-2011.html

http://www.atf.gov/field/chicago/releases-2009.html

Again, maybe you should educate yourself a little before spewing such nonsense.

This illustrates what is wrong with universal background checks, gun registration, magazine limits and all the rest of the gun control idiot's plans. The ATF generally doesn't prosecute what most of us characterize as "criminals". The criminal class is usually prosecuted by the state for serious violations of the law. The ATF usually only targets those that the state will not prosecute, mainly to set an example, for petty stuff. A lot of them are set-up to perform illegal acts.

Click to expand...

You are completely ignorant of what the ATF investigates, and which of their cases get prosecuted by the USAOs around the country:

Click to expand...

The Fourth Circuit Opinion goes into quite a bit of detail why they where so eager to prosecute this guy. The Defendant was initially suspected of robbing a bank. They searched his house and found a bank bag, but ultimately dropped the bank robber charges.

This case is different than most, in that the police found that this guy had been paid in advance for the glock 19 with a check that said ("glock 19") on the memo line. This and the other physical evidence which turned up during the bank robbery investigation pretty much eliminated any sort of argument about what he intended to do with the Glock once he purchased it.

Thank you Mr Brown! Any info on the other side?

Russellc

The whole "straw purchase" law should be thrown out. The crime should be in transfering a firearm to a person not legally able to possess one. The original intent of the straw purchase law was to prevent a person lawfully able to purchase a firearm from doing so on behalf of someone who was ineligible.

The fact that the firearm was transferred between the two parties through an FFL should have mooted the entire charge.

I agree. I have been reading things on Highroad for several years and this is the FIRST time I have heard that a straw purchase is between two people that can both legally purchase the firearm. The whole thing is strange. Even the reaction here confuses me. ???????? Are ya'll actually agreeing with this?? What if I as a woman tell my brother to go buy that shotgun i want because I have to work and hey it is now available. He goes and buys it and I pay him the next day. I pay him ????neither is a restricted buyer but because he put on the form he is the buyer instead of putting it was a ??????? is a crime????

Really a strange case.

So if I understand the laws here, had the first buyer purchased the gun with his own money, and the next day the second buyer given the money to the first buyer at the second FFL's shop, the entire sale would have been legal. Then the issue was that the second buyer gave the money to the first buyer BEFORE the gun was originally purchased. Correct?

I agree, the law SHOUJLD be changed to make SP sales illegal only if the ultimate buyer is a prohibited person. But that would make too much sense so it'll never happen.

But there is no "straw purchase" law per se. There is only the question on the 4473 that asks "are you the actual purchaser?" The question is the basis for straw man purchase prosecutions, and the reason the SCOTUS is reviewing the case is because some circuits have ruled that prosecuting based on the question is mooted if the ultimate recipient is a non-prohibited person, and others have ruled that it doesn't matter if the ultimate recipient is a non-prohibited person.

The fact that the transfer went through an FFL should have nullified the "actual purchaser" question entirely, since there was no face-to-face transfer outside the scrutiny of the Federal Government. The clear intent of the question is to prevent transfers of a legally purchased firearm to a prohibited person in a private transaction, but no such transfer occurred.