ctdonath
Member
That's the great perversion in this case: either the sting operatives actually broke the law and both operatives & dealer go to jail, or they didn't and everything is hunky dory (and the sting didn't prove anything).
Bloomberg gun sting ruled legal
- Thread starter ZeSpectre
- Start date
- Status
biscuitninja
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 353
Wow, again, next time this crap happens, if it were a state against state issue, I'd hope that the AG would get off their but and send some BATF people after this idiot. No matter what he did, there'd be some pretty powerful arms of the Govt. PLUS if I were VA, i'd actually be working with the dealers to actively go AFTER these people.
States in a Union we are supposed to be.
good luck
-bix
States in a Union we are supposed to be.
good luck
-bix
Deavis
Member
So if I act like I want to buy cocaine and then say I was kidding right after I guy it, that is okay? Hmmm... It is good to be the King
1010011010
Member
From the way I read it, the person whose details are on the paperwork, the person who pays, and the person who receives the weapon all have to be the same individual. Who paid?jerkin said:
The payment part (i.e. "actual buyer") is what gets me. It makes sense to me to have the person receiving the gun fill out the paperwork, regardless of who pays for it. I suppose the idea is that ineligible person won't trust their straw purchaser enough to let the money out of their control?
If it gets to the point to pay and the guy that's been doing all the talking hands a stack of small bills to the person that filled out the paperwork so they can immediately hand it to me and they immediately hand the gun (and change) to the guy who's been doing all the talking... it might be technically legal, but it radiates bad juju.
I never really got how this can be a dealer's fault. S0, if my wife wants to buy me a gun for my birthday, but it will be registered to me, she can't use her bank card to pay for it? So how does one ever buy a gun for someone as a gift?
Also, why does it even matter where the money comes from? If someone really wanted to do this for criminal purposes, they would just give the "straw man" the cash before they went in. In fact if I wanted to do this, I would say "Go in and buy the Glock 23 on the shelf. Here's $600. I was just in there 10 minutes ago playing with it."
Also, why does it even matter where the money comes from? If someone really wanted to do this for criminal purposes, they would just give the "straw man" the cash before they went in. In fact if I wanted to do this, I would say "Go in and buy the Glock 23 on the shelf. Here's $600. I was just in there 10 minutes ago playing with it."
I deal with one of the shops that got “caught” and is fighting the case. I’ve also seen a few of the videos Bloomberg’s cronies made.
Lemme tell ya…no more time than I spend in the gun shop, I’ve seen a number of occasions where a husband/boyfriend would do all the talking, then call his wife/girlfriend over and tell her “that’s the one you ought to get”. The wife/girlfriend seemed to not have much interest (often looking at other things in the store), apparently deferring to her partner to make the decision for her (often neither of ‘em knows a lot about firearms). I’ve got a feeling Bloomberg’s cronies know this is often the case-a female (or her partner) decides she needs a firearm for self-defense-and have no doubt they refined their “technique” to closely mimic a common practice between partners that no doubt occurs in gun shops all across the USA on a daily basis.
The entire thing is a joke (albeit an expensive one for both the shop owner and taxpayers). If I truly wanted to make a straw purchase, I’d give somebody the money, tell ‘em what to buy, and I’d be sitting down the road munching on a hot dog waiting on ‘em to deliver the goods!
Bloomberg’s cronies broke numerous laws when they lied on the forms, presented false ID, etc. If VA law enforcement or the BATF had any balls, they’d have Bloomberg and his partners in crime in the slammer for their offenses.
‘Course, VA did recently passed a law and sent Bloomberg a letter telling him if he pulled a stunt like this again he’d be in violation of the (new) law-I guess this time VA REALLY means it! Heck, he already violated a few laws…what’s breaking another mean to King Michael?
VA passing this new law kinda reminds me of the old joke:
What do Bobbies in England say to a fleeing felon?
STOP…or I’ll yell STOP again!
(Although I do believe they’re finally arming Bobbies?)
Heck, from what I understand (and this may have been used in one of the “stings”…)
You and I are standing there when I buy a $600 gun.
I count my money and have only $599!
I turn to you and borrow $1 (hey, I’ll pay ya back buddy).
BUSTED! You have now just made a “straw purchase”! (According to King Michael)
Your taxpayer money hard at work donchaknow…
jerkin said:
If this is how it went down, I still don't see the crime. Does the shop owner have the burden of second-guessing who ends up with the gun? I don't think so! His liability is limited to one thing: selling only to a qualified buyer. What happens before or after that sale is not in his control.
Harpo
According to King Michael...yup!
On two of the videos I saw...
1. After the guy does all the talking, the gal comes over to the counter-the clerk (leery or confused) asks either "who is this gun for" or "is this gun for you?" (the gal). Not sure of the exact wording, but he DID clarify exactly who was the buyer of the gun before proceeding with the paperwork. Legally, his ass is covered-the cronies Bloomberg hired proceeded to lie on the forms they filled out, checking the "are you the buyer of this gun" (or however it’s worded) box AND presenting falsified ID.
2. On video #2, the same thing happened, but the clerk stated (loosely), "wait a minute...he's been over here doing all the talking and you've shown no interest in the gun whatsoever-I can't sell you this gun".
Note that video #2 was one Bloomberg presented as how it "should be done"-whether this was an actual gun shop/sale or just a video PR stunt I can't say.
I looked up the wording on the 4473:
The way I read this, all the burden is on the person who signs the form. Regardless of what the clerk may see or hear on the sales floor before the sale, the clerk must assume the buyers statements are true. I suppose if coercion took place in front of the clerk (bad guy threatening to kill buyer if he won't make purchase, etc.), the clerk might have some liability, but I can't see any other way.
The form even says "You are also the actual buyer if you are legitimately acquiring the firearm as a gift for a third party." This reinforces the fact that subsequent transfers are the buyer's responsibility.
Harpo
The way I read this, all the burden is on the person who signs the form. Regardless of what the clerk may see or hear on the sales floor before the sale, the clerk must assume the buyers statements are true. I suppose if coercion took place in front of the clerk (bad guy threatening to kill buyer if he won't make purchase, etc.), the clerk might have some liability, but I can't see any other way.
The form even says "You are also the actual buyer if you are legitimately acquiring the firearm as a gift for a third party." This reinforces the fact that subsequent transfers are the buyer's responsibility.
Harpo
romma
Member
When I was at a gun shop with my girlfriend a few years ago when she was interested in revolvers to a degree, I asked all or most of the questions simply because she had no idea what questions to ask at all...
The clerk got suspicious and asked which one of us had the permit, and I replied "both of us". That calmed him down.
My point is, how many guys help their wives or girlfriends pick out their first guns? I am guessing a whole lot, particularly based on the very many threads I have seen here at THR...
Clerks see a lot of this and most of it is innocent I am sure.
The clerk got suspicious and asked which one of us had the permit, and I replied "both of us". That calmed him down.
My point is, how many guys help their wives or girlfriends pick out their first guns? I am guessing a whole lot, particularly based on the very many threads I have seen here at THR...
Clerks see a lot of this and most of it is innocent I am sure.
AirForceShooter
Member
is this going to be appealed?
AFS
AFS
EXACTLY!
As stated in my earlier post, no more time than I’ve spent at gun shops, I’ve seen this quite a few times by legit buyers.
I have NO doubt that Bloomberg’s cronies refined their technique to closely mimic what occurs every day, so as not to arouse suspicion. If they had not, and were open/blatant about it being a straw purchase, I’d bet every one of those shops “busted” would have refused to sell them a gun!
‘Course, now that the judge has ruled it was not a straw purchase…?
‘Course, the judge’s ruling should make no difference to the dealers, as they did what was required by law.
The only ones who did not were the ones lying on the forms and using falsified ID.
I don’t know that Bloomberg has any intention of letting it get far enough down the road for it to be appealed-I’m guessing it has to actually have been to trial before he can appeal it? They’re moving awfully slowly on this thing, which appears to be his strategy? I’ve heard that if this thing ever goes to court, there’s a darn good chance Bloomberg is gonna lose (and he knows it?). I can believe it, ‘cause based on what I know, if I was sitting on the jury, the gun dealer would win, and pretty damn quickly!
‘Course, Bloomberg’s strategy is probably not to ever get to court, where he may know he will, or stands a chance of losing. He’s simply going to waste taxpayers’ money and drag this thing out, hoping he can bleed the shop owner into bankruptcy.
He tried suing the gun makers, and when it looked like that wasn’t going to work (due to recently passed laws by Congress), he’s simply moving down the food chain to find his next victim.
A couple of goodies involving one shop owner who is fighting this thing:
1. Bloomberg’s cronies ARE on a fishing expedition, as they’ve requested info on specific guns (by serial #) that supposedly were involved in “something” in NY.
Guess where these guns are? Yup…the original owner of the gun brought it to the shop to prove he STILL had the gun-ain’t ever been outta his possession, and ain’t ever been anywhere near NY!
2. Shop owner has received a settlement from one lawyer/firm involved in this case for “Conflict of Interest”! The shop owner became suspicious with some of the things happening legally, and did some investigative work of his own. His lawyer found another lawyer on the case was guilty of conflict of interest and either said lawyer or his firm offered a settlement to the shop owner. The shop owner took the money and is using it to defray some of the costs of fighting Bloomberg.
I am very new to the concept of "undocumented personal transfers". since I live in CA. Are personal transfers legal in this state? If they are, then how is anything possibly illegal, since you could buy a gun, and then sell it undocumented to anyone you wanted to right outside the door legally?
Last edited:
In Virginia, sales between individuals are perfectly legal with no documentation or government involvement.
However, if you were to immediately resell a firearm you had just purchased, that could be interpreted by some to be "engaging in the business". It used to be a favorite ATF trick to watch private buyers at gun shows and then offer them more for a gun they had just bought. Gotcha, you just made a profit and are therefore "dealing".
However, if you were to immediately resell a firearm you had just purchased, that could be interpreted by some to be "engaging in the business". It used to be a favorite ATF trick to watch private buyers at gun shows and then offer them more for a gun they had just bought. Gotcha, you just made a profit and are therefore "dealing".
TEDDY
Member
straw buy
some one missed the main detail.the woman never gave the gun to the man but kept it.same in new hampshire.the point is one has to be unable to buy the gun because of disablity(felony).the other buys and hands it to felon.this did not happen.if both are legal to buy its not a straw purchase.in other words the mayor is scaming.or conning.
----
------:banghead:
some one missed the main detail.the woman never gave the gun to the man but kept it.same in new hampshire.the point is one has to be unable to buy the gun because of disablity(felony).the other buys and hands it to felon.this did not happen.if both are legal to buy its not a straw purchase.in other words the mayor is scaming.or conning.
----------:banghead:- Status
