Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban

[Lone_Gunman]

Duke, I guess I am getting in on this late, but the way I have always understood gun purchases/gifts/straw purchases is as follows:

If you buy a gun with your money and give it to a non-prohibited person, there is no straw purchase. It doesn't matter if its a relative, friend, or complete stranger.

If you buy a gun with your money, and give it to a prohibited person, it is still not a straw purchase (because it was a gift), but the gift is still illegal because the person was prohibited to buy a gun. This is illegal in the same way that giving someone under 21 a beer is illegal, but not because of straw purchase laws.

If you take someone else's money and upon their request, buy a gun, and turn it over to them, it is a straw purchase. It doesn't matter if its a relative, friend, or complete stranger.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Lone Gunman: "Duke, I guess I am getting in on this late ..."

Kinda, but all that means is your week was busier than mine.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the possibility that it actually may be kosher for me to order 5,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and upon taking delivery, "give" them to a charitable organization which will distribute them as they see fit in accordance with their charitable purposes, to whomever they may choose, according to a random, anonymous list of numbered donees.

Creepy, huh?

 

[jon_in_wv]

It has too with intent. If they can prove you purchased it with the INTENT of giving it to a prohibited person, there in lies the problem. If you buy it for someone else, you must mention that at the time of purchase.

The thing Pelosi did that I find the most disturbing is implying they need to start enforcing the existing laws on the books and that Bush did not. This is an outright lie. Bush pushed the most aggressive enforcement of gun laws in the last 20 years. Arrests and convictions for gun related crimes (felon in possession and illegal purchases) were WAY up under Bush. His theory was that by showing that existing laws are doing the job the cry for more laws will be squashed. The Clinton era philosophy was to get the laws on the books and then NOT enforce them so you could continue to push for more laws. When a draconian system of laws was in place then aggressive enforcement could be put in place to disarm the population.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If your kid gives you money to buy a gun, it's illegal.

What if I make him mow the yard for a year?

 

[Mainsail]

You wrote:

2. Straw purchases. Buying your son/nephew "his" rifle is illegal.

K3 replied:

Not exactly.

I can buy a rifle and give it to my son as a gift. Perfectly legal.

To which you replied:

…if you buy a gun, and a day later give it to your son, that is a straw purchase.

Now it’s:

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the possibility that it actually may be kosher for me to order 5,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and upon taking delivery, "give" them to a charitable organization which will distribute them as they see fit in accordance with their charitable purposes, to whomever they may choose, according to a random, anonymous list of numbered donees.

Instead of just admitting you were wrong, you’ve somehow sarcastically twisted it to make yourself appear correct. Brilliant. You might consider a little intellectual integrity in the future.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

TexasRifleman: "What if I make him mow the yard for a year?"

That's part of what I'm getting at. You've quickly noted the most obvious way to get around the prohibition, if it is indeed legal to "buy-to-give".

Yours is the most innocent transfer, and it's undestandable why enforcement would be lax, there. But imagine cargo planes and trucks full of guns, ordered by some bribed schmoe in Pastywhite, Indiana, "gifting" them all to the Mosque of the Red Death, with total anonymity and a black hole as to ultimate disposition? I know, that's the uberscary scenario. Organized crime was my much more realistic one. It just seems too easy. And in law, when it seems too easy, it is.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Mainsail: "Brilliant. You might consider a little intellectual integrity in the future."

Whatever, kiddo.

 

[Poor East Texan]

Some of you have actual email addys for some of the pols?

All I ever find are web things which I've sent and got form letter platitudes in reply.

All of the big three (Pelosi, Reed and bHo) are anti gun. They just gotta get their acts together.... and they will.

 

[JR47]

An attorney will always seek to find a way around the laws. We see it every day. This is why there are so few laws enacted that make any sense, as they have to cover every base, no matter how inane.

If the 4473 defines what is the BATFE interpretation of a straw-man purchase, and also defines the conditions required for a gift, and who is, in that process, a lawful buyer, one can imagine away, but has no legal standing in the imagination.

Four pages, because one poster can't accept what the law says.

 

[GonHuntin]

Instead of just admitting you were wrong, you’ve somehow sarcastically twisted it to make yourself appear correct. Brilliant. You might consider a little intellectual integrity in the future.

Intellectual integrity??? He is a lawyer, need I say more???

 

[parrothead2581]

I don't want to sound rude but, what does the definition of a straw purchase have to do with what this thread is about; what Nancy Pelosi said?

I don't think her comment has anything to do with her desire for re-election. We do remember which district she represents, right? The NRA has given her an "F" in the past and she continues to be re-elected. Her voting record on the issue is obvious. It would seem, the majority in her district could care less about the 2nd Amendment.

I believe they're angry this was brought to the public's attention when they would love to pass it....as quietly as possible.

 

[Gardien]

When BHO says he supports the 2nd Amendment, what he means is that he supports his interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JR 47: "If the 4473 defines what is the BATFE interpretation of a straw-man purchase, and also defines the conditions required for a gift, and who is, in that process, a lawful buyer, one can imagine away, but has no legal standing in the imagination. Four pages, because one poster can't accept what the law says."

'Fraid not, Counsellor. If the brief general instructions to your IRS Form 1040 appear to conflict with an obscure forty-year old General Counsel Memorandum interpreting some Treasury Regulations promulgated under a section of the Internal Revenue Code, the GCM trumps the silly little Instructions.

 

[chris in va]

America is bristling with firearms right now. I think they're treading on thin ice and know it.

Kinda like a porcupine with it's guard up. Go ahead, try to pluck a quill out. See what happens.

 

[BWB]

I sure hope nobody is actually falling for this transparent Pelosi/Obama rope-a-dope.
Their records are clear. Their intentions are clear. The ONLY questions are when and how.
So far, their strategy in all things follows a recognizable pattern: tell 'em what they want to hear to put them to sleep while we do what we want to do.
Look for the "Assault Weapons Ban" to appear some Monday morning as part of another omnibus spending bill that nobody read before they voted for it that includes free health care for everybody and a tax cut for everybody and an increase for those filthy rich who pay all the taxes already.
Then just try to get it repealed.

 

[wrc376]

I have a hunch that the left is just playing with the right on gun issues right now... get the right riled up on gun issues and then offer to give it up for some concessions by the republicans.

its just a political game this time-

obama wants cooperation and he is not going to risk starting a fire by taking on real gun issues-

 

[wrc376]

obama knows his 60% approval would tank if he attacked guns... I wouldn't be surprised if half the people who voted for him were gun owners.

 

[Mainsail]

Intellectual integrity??? He is a lawyer, need I say more???

Not a very good one apparently or he would have gone back and edited his posts before I forever enshrined them in quotes.

 

[JN01]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the possibility that it actually may be kosher for me to order 5,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and upon taking delivery, "give" them to a charitable organization which will distribute them as they see fit in accordance with their charitable purposes, to whomever they may choose, according to a random, anonymous list of numbered donees.

This hypothetical transfer would have to be reported to ATF as a multiple sale. A gift involving a large number of firearms would undoubtedly trigger someones interest and the transaction as well as the subsequent "distributions" would be put under a microscope. Wouldn't be smart for anyone engaging in illegal activities if they wanted to stay under the radar.

Back to the topic, I wonder if the DNC leadership is even more leery of tackling gun control issues for now due to the huge increase in firearms/ammunition sales following the election. They may be arrogant, but they're not completely stupid.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JNo1: "This hypothetical transfer would have to be reported to ATF as a multiple sale. A gift involving a large number of firearms would undoubtedly trigger someones interest and the transaction as well as the subsequent "distributions" would be put under a microscope. Wouldn't be smart for anyone engaging in illegal activities if they wanted to stay under the radar."

WHOOSH! Right over his head.

As a GIFT, it need not be, if the above posters are correct. Nor need the original purchaser disclose the original donee, later donor, organization.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Mainsail: "Not a very good one apparently or he would have gone back and edited his posts before I forever enshrined them in quotes."

Maybe a dude like you does that sort of thing; I don't. Closest thing in this thread I did to that was to edit a post to say "Edit -- hasty post" while I checked the rules to ensure they still said what I thought they did, planning to further edit to admit or deny, as appropriate. Turns out the rules still did say what I thought they did. No matter; right on cue you had quoted what I had said originally within seconds. Cool. Glad to see you're hanging on my words, so closely. That's fine; I stand by what I said.

 

[n00bdave]

It seems to me that this is a more complex issue than some of us realize. There are FEDERAL and STATE gun laws. Some states require a transfer permit to transfer a gun as a gift, or even to inherit a firearm. There can be different interpretations of these laws, and state/local restrictions. A lawyer--like our friend Duke--has probably seen his share of twisted takes on what should be easy to see and read in black and white.

 

[JN01]

WHOOSH! Right over his head.

As a GIFT, it need not be, if the above posters are correct. Nor need the original purchaser disclose the original donee, later donor, organization.

Over your head. The ORIGINAL PURCHASE of 5000 rifles would be a MULTIPLE SALE which the dealer would be obligated to report to the ATF. The rest is admittedly conjecture on my part, but I would find it hard to believe that if ATF was informed of the purchase of a large quantity of weapons by someone who is not a firearms dealer, that they would not make inquiries about the transaction and subsequent gift, even if there was no LEGAL requirement to do so at the time of the sale.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JN01: "The ORIGINAL PURCHASE of 5000 rifles would be a MULTIPLE SALE which the dealer would be obligated to report to the ATF. The rest is admittedly conjecture on my part, but I would find it hard to believe that if ATF was informed of the purchase of a large quantity of weapons by someone who is not a firearms dealer, that they would not make inquiries about the transaction and subsequent gift, even if there was no LEGAL requirement to do so at the time of the sale."

In my hypothetical, let us say ATF actually asks me where the 5,000 rifles went, and I did not invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of an allegedly deceased former client, in accordance with Swidler & Berlin v. U.S.. My answer? "Yo no se." Even better, "Da Mohammed Chorch. For-a dos illegal Tax Porpoises." And the next day? "Sheik, can you tell us whether you indeed actually received or transferred 5,000 Kalashnikov rifles originally from one "Mr. Doubt" of Fingerless Axeman Lake, Maine?"/"Yo no se, Senor."

 

[JN01]

I'm not an attorney, can't argue case law or legal strategy.

I'm just saying that your "loophole" isn't invisible. It is likely to trigger an investigation and/or close scrutiny of your hypothetical "shady" organization.