Philadelphia targets Straw Purchases (story)

[Badger Arms]

First, let me say that I rarely see something in the news that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, but this story did. For all their hot air, the anti-gun crowd has been getting it wrong for so long, I doubt they can see what's right through the fog of their own rhetoric. Straw purchases are particularly annoying because they go unpunished for the most part. The people who buy guns with the intent of passing them directly to a prohibited person give us honest buyers a bad name. Hey, here's a thought, just enforce the laws we have and leave honest gun owners alone! Anyhow, here's a link and I'll cut and paste the story below for the lazy. There's an email address if you want to thank the reporter for a good story.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20090331_Phila__charges_gun__quot_straw_quot__buyer.html

Phila. charges gun "straw" buyer
By Joseph A. Slobodzian

Inquirer Staff Writer

It was not a stretch for Philadelphia police to believe that the car they stopped Jan. 17 in the 5600 block of West Berks Street in Overbrook might have something to do with the gunshots they had just heard.

The car's rear window was missing and its body was pocked with bullet holes. A 17-year-old from Southwest Philadelphia in the car was arrested.

But the real surprise came later, when agents from the city's Gun Violence Task Force searched the car and found two .40-caliber handguns hidden in the door panels. One of the guns, based on a receipt in the trunk, had been bought just three hours earlier by a West Philadelphia woman. It had not been stolen by the 17-year-old.

Yesterday, that West Philadelphia woman - Dorothy Perretta, 24, of the 800 block of North 45th Street - was the first person charged under a new program that targets adults who agree to be "straw" buyers of firearms for juveniles.

District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham called Perretta's purchase "particularly odious."

"It's bad no matter who does it," Abraham added, "but it is particularly wrong and telling when an adult can be hired by some kid to straw-purchase .40-caliber guns in a gun store in multiple quantities for sale to kids on the street to go commit crimes," Abraham added.

"These are not toys," Abraham said of the handguns. "These are huge lethal weapons."

Speaking in front of the Family Court building at 1801 Vine St., Abraham was joined by Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Family Court Administrative Judge Kevin Dougherty, Deputy Police Commissioner Richard Ross, and State Sen. Larry Farnese (D., Phila.).

Abraham said from 10 to 20 juveniles are arrested each month for illegally possessing a firearm.

Under the initiative, funded with part of an annual $5 million state grant that created the task force two years ago, the case of any juvenile arrested for a crime involving a gun will be handled by an assistant district attorney and Family Court judge who will try to learn the source of the weapon.

Dougherty said adult straw buyers "have exploited their relationship with the juvenile. The rehabilitation of the juvenile will begin by having them provide us with the name of the adult who provided them with the gun."

Dougherty said "any juvenile arrested with a gun will not leave the Youth Study Center" before his or her case is adjudicated, to protect public safety.

Juveniles who cooperate have the chance to avoid a felony record that will "follow them for the rest of their lives. . . . We're trying to keep our children to go to State College as opposed to State Road," Dougherty said, referring to the city's prison complex in the Northeast.

State law bars anyone under 18 from buying or possessing a handgun. Abraham said an adult who buys and provides a handgun to a juvenile is guilty of a third-degree felony that carries a prison term of up to seven years.

Since the Gun Violence Task Force was created two years ago, Corbett said, more than 949 investigations have been opened, with 285 people arrested, and 577 firearms confiscated.

According to the District Attorney's Office, 85 of the adult arrests have resulted in convictions and four juvenile arrests have resulted in adjudications. Most cases are are pending in the court system.

Perretta, who was arrested Jan. 29, remains in custody on $150,000 bail on counts of conspiracy and illegal transfer of firearms, and related charges.

Abraham also announced the arrests of 16 others from Philadelphia, Bucks County and Georgia who were charged with making straw gun buys for convicted felons and others not legally permitted to own them.

-----------

Contact staff writer Joseph A. Slobodzian at 215-854-2985 or [email protected].

 

[CoRoMo]

While I do like pie, I prefer cake. But I highly doubt they could ever successfully target the vast majority of straw sales where the gun is then transferred to a family member or friend who never commits a crime with it.

 

[Badger Arms]

While I do like pie, I prefer cake. But I highly doubt they could ever successfully target the vast majority of straw sales where the gun is then transferred to a family member or friend who never commits a crime with it.

I'd be less concerned about THAT kind of straw purchase than I would about the type it seems they are targeting... the ones that are done to provide them to prohibited persons. Remember, these are juveniles and felons, for the most part. There is nothing wrong with my wife buying me a gun for my birthday... that's not a straw purchase. A straw purchase is where one party buys a gun with the intent of providing it to another knowing that that person is ineligible to purchase the gun themselves.

 

[Millwright]

Once gain proving gun laws don't work!!

The U.S. Justice Dept. released stats on this exact fact man[y years ago. In the " criminal community" guns are no9t hard to get with the primary avenue being "familly". IOW, the DOJ admitted/documented "the "gun show loophole" doesn't exist........ >MW

 

[CoRoMo]

A straw purchase is where one party buys a gun with the intent of providing it to another knowing that that person is ineligible to purchase the gun themselves.

Wrong.

A straw purchase is defined as a purchase where question 12 a. on form 4473 is answered dishonestly, period.

It doesn't matter if the final individual who receives the firearms can legally own or possess it or not. It doesn't matter who, what, why, where.
If 12 a. is answered dishonestly, and the gun is transferred to someone who is legally allowed to own and possess that gun = straw purchase. It has nothing to do with bonafide gifts. If I may plagiarize a fellow member's post...

Page 165 of the 2005 Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide:

Quote:
15. 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.

Illegality of ownership/possession is merely one of the many, many reasons that straw purchases happen every single day in this country.

 

[zminer]

As I read Note 1 from Form 4473, it would NOT be a straw purchase if, for example, a parent decided to buy a gun as a gift for his/her child, as long as the parent used their own money. The example given on the form is:

"... if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual buyer of the firearm and should answer 'yes' to Question 12a."

Would it be possible for a purchaser to claim to the police that they got the gun as a gift for their friend, as long as that friend was 18 years of age? (Of course there are laws against furnishing weapons to people so that they can commit crimes, but I'm speaking only of the straw purchasing laws, which are the focus of the article.)

Once gain proving gun laws don't work!!

Not entirely true, seeing as this woman could be going to jail for being a straw purchaser. I'd say it worked pretty well, especially if she's someone who has been a source for kids to get guns. And, sure, there are other people out there who they can get guns from ... but at least there's one less source now, and maybe the others who provide this service will be less likely to agree to do it for someone else, making it harder for criminals to get guns.

 

[Badger Arms]

I'd like to see the law that they are going to prosecute these people under. Hard to presecute my wife if I give her $400 to pick up a Ruger while she is in Wilmington. Easier to prosecute a lady who takes money from a 17-year-old and buys a gun. BTW, my Wife has NEVER bought a gun for me.... I'm just saying... wait a minute... maybe I need to find me a wife who WILL buy me a gun.

 

[CoRoMo]

You're right, the "lesser evil" type of straw purchase happens every single day in this country and is ultimately harmless. Illegal, but harmless. Stupid law.

"It's bad no matter who does it," Abraham added,

I disagree.

If you threw out all straw purchase law, you'd not lose anything substantial because there are more than enough gun laws! Take the OP article for example. Remove the straw purchase illegalities, and you still have plenty of book to throw at everybody involved. Straw purchase laws are stupid, and I don't think this is a good thing; to pursue stupid laws.

 

[zminer]

Take the OP article for example. Remove the straw purchase illegalities, and you still have plenty of book to throw at everybody involved. Straw purchase laws are stupid, and I don't think this is a good thing; to pursue stupid laws.

I'd be interested to hear why you think straw purchase laws do not make sense. Sure, in this case you have plenty of other things to charge the kid who did the shooting with, but without a straw purchase law, wouldn't there be no way to charge the woman who was buying guns for gangbangers?

 

[CoRoMo]

zminer:
If you use the search function to look up straw purchases in the legal forum, you'll find many, many instances where honest, law abiding people find themselves making a straw purchase with no criminal intent.

Here's one example.
A young boy tells his father that he wants a 20ga. shotgun. He is of course too young to buy the gun himself, so he commits to saving his money up, penny by penny, working small jobs until he has the $90 to buy an H&R single shot. He gives that money to his proud daddy, who then goes to the gunshop and buys the shotgun his son saved up for. That is a straw purchase, it is illegal, and the law prohibiting it is STUPID!!

Sure, Dad can gift the gun to his son. Sure, the boy can wait until he's older to legally buy the gun. Sure, Dad can buy the gun and when the kid is old enough, the boy can buy it from his dad. Having to jump through these legal hoops doesn't prevent the crimes that these laws were intended for; gun violence. Therefore, they are senseless. If I want my son to learn the responsibility of saving his own money to buy the gun he likes, I'm committing an illegal straw purchase when I use his money to buy the gun. That makes no sense to me at all.

This is but one of the many, many scenarios (if you'd like another, let me know) where straw purchases are, although illegal, harmless, and illustrate the senselessness of the laws. We have enough gun control laws already.


Back to the OP article...
I have to guess that the minor was involved in a drive-by shooting, and the woman is an accomplice to that drive-by shooting. She transferred a firearm into the possession of a minor who intended its use in a crime.

 

[zminer]

CoRoMo -

Thanks for the reply. I've checked into a few of the stories posted in the past, and I agree that the straw purchase situation is a thorny one. However, I do think that laws against straw purchasing are important, and here's why.

People may say that straw purchase laws do not prevent crime, but I disagree. Let's take the article from the OP as an example. The female buyer in the story is guilty of straw purchasing under the current laws, and hopefully will go to jail. However, if there were no such laws and her only offense was providing a firearm to be used in a crime, she would have an easier time of things. If she got a lawyer it would probably be a pretty easy job to make an argument that she didn't know the person she bought it for was going to use it in a crime. If that defense works, she gets off scot-free and is able to continue providing guns to anyone who she can plausibly claim she didn't know was going to commit a crime with the gun she bought for them. While the law did not stop the first crime from taking place, it did stop all the subsequent crimes that would have taken place because gangbangers had ready access to firearms.

Does that law also cause hassles for legal gun owners? Sure, like in the situation you mentioned above. But there are ways to deal with those hassles. (In the case above, perhaps the father and son could do an FTF deal with someone rather than buying at a gun shop. Legal, and allows the kid to get a lesson in what to look for in used guns.) Those hassles are generally minor, they don't interfere a great deal with people's ability to exercise the right to bear arms, and are the price we pay to prevent one method of funneling firearms to criminals.

 

[MountainBear]

This is a good thing. But as with all good things, the government will turn it into a bad thing by overstepping the authority granted them by, well, us. In this case (assuming we got all the facts, which I'm sure we didn't) the lady seems quite guilty and I have very little problem with someone going to prison for supplying a gun to a gang-banger.

But when this law is used to arrest a parent who buys his 14 year old son a Ruger Bearcat and teaches him to shoot, then it becomes wrong. And I can only assume, given the government's record, that its only a matter of time.

 

[CoRoMo]

zee...
There are a few too many 'ifs' in your reply.
If she got a lawyer, If she got off, If her defense worked. What if a criminal decided to follow the law? Yeah right. I could also do the "what if" thing endlessly.

There is one thing we know, criminals don't look up laws before they commit crimes. You cannot say that "it did stop all subsequent crimes", because those crimes haven't been attempted yet. She's a criminal! If she decides to break another gun law, she'll do it!

AFAIK, there are a multitude of laws she broke other than being an accomplice to the drive-by shooting. She could be convicted on organized crime laws as are gang members these days. She was "hired" to do this after all. If you're worried that she's going to get off with the ability to legally purchase more firearm, take that up with the prosecuting authority. There are enough laws that could be thrown at her and keep her out of gunshops for a lifetime.

Also, telling me that these laws create minor hassles that don't interfere a great deal, is the same as telling me that banning my AR15 will keep criminals from acquiring assault rifles. I'm a law abiding, honest citizen and I shouldn't be restricted or regulated just because a legislature feels criminals would be controlled by the law. I know the law feels good, but it makes no logical sense.

 

[Badger Arms]

CoRoMo, what you quoted might be a little out of context. I'll quote the rest of that section:

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.

It appears that the "law" that they intend to get you on here is that you are making false official statements as to who the actual "purchaser" is. This is quite vague and it requires a real judgement leap to connect. The government has to prove that the funds being used to purchase the firearm are not those of the person filling out the 4473. Reading further through the "straw purchase" section, I realized two disturbing things about what they are saying.

First, what does this mean for somebody who is bedridden? A bedridden person can never legally buy a firearm from a dealer because said transaction has to take place on the premises of said FFL's business. I wonder if this is a way to challenge the GCA with the Americans with Disabilities Act? The ADA combined with the 2nd Ammendment should trump the GCA, right?

Second, what about joint funds? My wife and I have a joint account. Say she is looking to buy a new CCW revolver and writes a check for that purchase. That check comes from a joint account and has both of our names on it! That makes it a straw purchase?! Do I have to completely separate my credit and my accounts from those of my wife for our purchases to be legal? What about cash? The BATFE could present withdrawal reciepts proving that the CASH came from a joint account... STRAW PURCHASE!!! GO TO JAIL!!!

That's it... I should have voted differently.

 

[CoRoMo]

As you were posting, I was adding that example in this other thread.

We must not have much else to do than to flip through the FFRRG.

Surely the joint funds between spouses doesn't affect a thing?
What about this one...

Your three kids (adult age) pool their funds to buy you a shotgun and gift it to you.

And there are a multitude of scenarios where this law is shown to be what it is... senseless and unneeded.

I love the ADA angle!! Good work. I'd love to see the NRA pursue that on behalf of someone.

 

[yeti]

Now I understand, as long as you use a gift certificate, anything goes.

 

[zminer]

There are a few too many 'ifs' in your reply. If she got a lawyer, If she got off, If her defense worked. What if a criminal decided to follow the law? Yeah right. I could also do the "what if" thing endlessly.

I agree that my situation was hypothetical, so let's take it to a very practical level instead. Is it possible that this woman could get off if there were no straw purchase law? Yes - quite possible. She and the kid can both clam up and just deny ever knowing each other at all. What evidence can the state muster to prove her intent, or her knowledge that he would use the gun in a felony? Not much. The case seems to be in jeopardy.

On the other hand, is it possible that she could get off with the straw purchase in place? Highly unlikely. There's a 4473 form with her name and signature on it. There's a receipt in his trunk with the gun listed on it. With or without the testimony of the kid or the woman, this case is closed. The straw purchaser goes to prison and the city's lawyers move on to the next case.

You cannot say that "it did stop all subsequent crimes", because those crimes haven't been attempted yet. She's a criminal! If she decides to break another gun law, she'll do it!

You absolutely can do this - in fact, lawmakers do it all the time. They have to determine what the likelihood is that passing a new law will have the effect that they want it to, so they weigh the possible outcomes. "How many crimes will we prevent by passing a three-strikes law?" They consider the future criminality of people who will commit - and be convicted of - a third felony, and weigh the prevention of those future crimes against the cost of incarceration, the political capital required to create and run the program, etc.

My point is that if there is an effective law in place which allows - and then actually follows through with - prosecution of people who are making straw purchases, then the people who make straw purchases for gangbangers will be in jail, and people not already in jail will be aware that making straw purchases is a bad idea. Straw purchases drop off, and with them drops off handgun crime. It's purely a deterrence model.

She could be convicted on organized crime laws as are gang members these days

Maybe, but let's be realistic here. What prosecuting authority has the time and resources to try to prove that the actions of one random woman in Philly meets the criteria of someone in an organized crime ring, when it's clear that she's already broken a law which will send her to prison? Why not just try her for that and get her off the street?

Also, telling me that these laws create minor hassles that don't interfere a great deal, is the same as telling me that banning my AR15 will keep criminals from acquiring assault rifles.

This is not the same thing at all. Banning a certain type of gun is not at all analogous to having minor restrictions on the ways in which people are able to obtain firearms from a certain part of the firearms supply chain. You can't give your friend $1500 to go to Joe's Pretty Good Guns and buy an AR-15 for you? True. But you can go down there and buy it yourself. Or find one on GunBroker and have it shipped to an FFL. Or do an FTF with someone locally. You are not in any meaningful way being prevented from obtaining the kinds of weapons you want. At worst, you are experiencing a minor inconvenience - a minor inconvenience which can translate into being able to track down and put into prison the people who are illegally purchasing firearms for felons, and underage gangbangers.