Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm going to talk to a contact this weekend about this. The authorities and dealers I've spoken with about this issue in the past, and I admit I've never litigated the straw purchaser issue in court, have had very different interpretations of the regulations and caselaw. If indeed they are to be interpreted so as to permit purchases for the purpose of gifts to third parties, then I'm frankly at a loss, as that would render the straw purchase regulations utterly incapable of enforcement. Every single straw purchase would be characterized, even structured, as a gift. But as I say, I'll withdraw from the debate and talk to my contacts about this. If you're right, then an awful lot of my clients are going to be absolutely delighted. No, the prohibited persons remain prohibited from possession, but the "gift" exclusion, if interpreted as broadly as you suggest, would bring them far, far closer to physical possession, legal or otherwise, than they are, now.
 
In 2010, there will be 36 Senate seats up for re-election and 430 seats in the House.
Hopefully the politicos are keeping this in mind as this new Administration forms policy.
Zeke
 
Every single straw purchase would be characterized, even structured, as a gift.
Click to expand...

Incorrect

The ineligible party uses the purchaser as a straw man for the purchase.

An individual purchasing a firearm as a gift is the actual purchaser and receives nothing in exchange for the firearm.
 
hso: "Incorrect The ineligible party uses the purchaser as a straw man for the purchase. An individual purchasing a firearm as a gift is the actual purchaser and receives nothing in exchange for the firearm."

Working a deal around that would be child's play. An accountant gets a referral from an OC client. He shows his gratitude on the OC's wife's birthday by buying her an AK-patterned rifle as a gift.
 
If indeed they are to be interpreted so as to permit purchases for the purpose of gifts to third parties, then I'm frankly at a loss, as that would render the straw purchase regulations utterly incapable of enforcement.
Click to expand...

Make sure when you ask you make sure to say "legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift."

They update the 4473 every couple years. In 5 years of dealing guns I've seen 3 different versions. All allowed purchases for another person if it was a legitimate gift. If they have had any problems with it, I'm sure they would have corrected the wording on the 4473 by now.

The ATF meets with dealers to discuss these things. I have customers come in all the time, fill out a 4473, and say "this is a gift for my nephew," or "My son's birthday is coming up, this Cricket is for him." If the gift exception didn't exist, I could not legally complete these transactions, as the buyer just told me the gun wasn't actually for them.

Let us know what you find out.
 
DOD,Buying a gun to give as a gift IS legal as long as you use your money and buy it for yourself first. It is your property until you give it away. Also if the person you are gifting is legally eligible to own a firearm. As a lawyer YOU should know that.
Click to expand...
__________________
I have purchased guns many times only to give or sell to my son and he has done the same for me. My CCW was bought by my son and given to me. I ahve bought and given guns to other family members, none are convicted felons. Perfectly legal per the state of Florida.. We do keep records.
 
waterhouse: "If they have had any problems with it, I'm sure they would have corrected the wording on the 4473 by now."

I suspect you are exactly correct about that. Only a reprobate like me (heh-heh) would see a loophole like that and proceed to drive a truckload of AK-pattern rifles through it. ATF simply hasn't yet had to deal with a "gift" consisting of a truckload of AK-pattern rifles delivered to the Ukrainian-American Church. As an attorney, I imagine those scenarios by habit, but in reality they would be rare and quiet, if they happen at all. My conversations on these matters have been with federal and state lawyers and judges, who are used to thinking and talking that way. Most here read the straw purchase regs and imagine the wholesome picture of Little Johnnie getting a .22 Cricket for his birthday. I read them and imagine organized crime driving truckloads of gift-wrapped AKs to Kansas City.
 
I imagine some of the unenforced laws the dear lady from California is referring to would include overseas firearms and ammunition. So get use to the idea of buying American...you may not have a choice.
 
Short sweet and simple. After watching her for many years, if it didn't come from her mouth first, then she's not going to be for it. Period. I'm sure after the first week of the Obama administration she had a couple of sit down and listen to me moments from the new C&C. It almost seemed like after President Obama was elected, she thgouth she was the one in charge and what she sadi goes. She very clearly seemed put off and offeneded at times when Obama actually started speaking for himself and wasn't 100% in step with the exact talking points of teh DNC and what she had been harping on for so long. But slowly, they are pulling together and, as we all saw the other night, she's the little cheer leader of the DNC now.

You can almost picture her in that llittle outfit can't you....
 
JohnMcD348: "You can almost picture her in that llittle outfit can't you...."

Yeah, in the charity dunking machine. Quit teasing me.
 
“I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Click to expand...

The journalist responded with "What specific examples are there of that and what's now being done to correct it?"
No wait, they didn't? When did journalism simply become liaison work? Cut and paste, go on home...
 
I wonder how long blaming Bush will last?

I mean, the whole damn nation blamed Carter for a lot of things, but Reagan wasn't in for more than a few days before people expected him to deliver.

I don't remember him sitting around and blaming Carter -- and for those who are too young to remember, the very early '80s sucked worse than now, economically.

He knew that people would blame Carter/Ford/Nixon et al., or they wouldn't. If they blamed Reagan's predecessors, he didn't have to mention it. And if people DIDN'T blame them, then Reagan doing it would have sounded really lame.

Campaigning a year later, against a former President, who was termed-out before that, when you're the Speaker of the House, sounds pathetic, frankly.
 
“I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

In the context of firearm regulations that should be disturbing enough.

With my experience with educated political double speak this means:

"We will take a lot of heat from the AWB when we propose it. We need to wait a little longer until it is a sure thing, but the ATF can reinterprete how current enforcment is handled."
Essentialy they can create new "laws" or policies with already existing laws on the books.

Most of the rules the ATF puts forward are not actual law, but thier hundreds of different interpretations based on what they say is within the meaning of existing law.
Those policies can then be enforced through the existing law. Allowing gun "laws" to be changed without ever passing a new law.
They can also apply various import restrictions, which they discussed recently. So the majority of imported "assault weapons" can no longer be imported in different configurations and then Americanized with a list of parts. What we call conversions, necessary to comply with current law. This was discussed by these politicians just a couple weeks ago.
 
Despite his voting record, I remember Obama saying, "I support the 2nd Amendment and people's right to keep and bear arms."
Click to expand...

He supports a toothless Second Amendment that protects the right to whatever arms the government decides to allow.

Obama's view is similar to that of Justice Stephen Breyer, who dissented from the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Even if the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, Breyer said, that right has to be weighed against "other important governmental interests." And since a gun law such as the AWB might reduce violent crime (never mind the lack of evidence that it actually would), the courts should yield to legislators' judgments about how best to strike the balance.
 
BHPFAN: "2. Straw purchases. Buying your son/nephew "his" rifle is illegal.
wrong.Not true even in California."

It's a federal law, not a state law. And the above sentence is not wrong. What IS at issue, and where I may have over-reached, is where you buy your nephew a gun AS A GIFT to him. If the regs and such are interpreted to mean I CAN buy a truckload of rifles as a "gift" to, say, the Ukrainian-American Church Fund and transfer them all to the Church the same day, then there are going to be one HECK of a lot of "gifts" this spring, I'll tell you what.
 
Eric Holder doesn't seem like a very reliable conspirator because he talks too much. He acts like he's just speaking to like-minded people and that his remarks won't make it onto the news. He's not quite ready for prime time yet. He'll learn to be more careful about what he says.


Nancy Pelosi has no idea one way or the other. She's a 25 W bulb.


Obama and all his crew are anti-gun. They're more of a junta than an administration. They won't likely last more than four years and the last two may be a wild ride, but we'll have to see what we've got left at the end of it. Don't expect America to be easily recognizable in 2012.
 
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b

(B14) May a parent or guardian purchase firearms or ammunition as a gift for a juvenile (less than 18 years of age)? [Back]

Yes. However, possession of handguns by juveniles (less than 18 years of age) is generally unlawful. Juveniles generally may only receive and possess handguns with the written permission of a parent or guardian for limited purposes, e.g., employment, ranching, farming, target practice or hunting.

[18 U.S.C. 922(x)]
 
GonHuntin, we've all read that part. We've narrowed the issue to a relatively limited situation. If your kid gives you money to buy a gun, it's illegal. Likewise with a lot of other transfers. What we're debating, and I've suspended my participation until I can get some input from some professional colleagues with whom I've discussed this issue before, is, what happens if you buy guns as a "gift" for another person (natural person, corporate person, charitable organization, etc.). Is that "O.K."? To my imagination, if the answer is "yes," as it appears it may be, that creates a loophole so big you could fly a cargo plane loaded with Kalashnikovs through it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3
  • Locked
Nancy Pelosi Throws COLD WATER on AWB Renewal
Replies
2
Views
778
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
H
  • Locked
I'm floored. Just flippin' floored....
Replies
2
Views
632
Justin
Justin
R
  • Locked
Now Harry Reid!
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
W.E.G.
  • Locked
Contact your Representative - assault weapons ban
Replies
0
Views
391
W.E.G.
W.E.G.
M
  • Locked
Air Pelosi
Replies
19
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top