« BATF loses suit to undercover agent | Main | That's funny, I thought it was George Bush »
Police officers charged in alleged straw man sales
Story here. The trial starts Monday, and the defendants are two Sacramento County deputies, an FFL, and a private purchaser.
As I read the story, it arises out of California's discriminatory gun laws. To be sold new in CA, a handgun must pass "safety tests," which are expensive (they must be done by State-licensed labs, and involve a lot more than safety). Lots of ordinary handguns -- such as the Ruger .380 said to be at issue) don't have the certification.
BUT (despite this being a supposed safety standard) police officers (and as I recall the law, employees of a prosecutor's office) can buy unlisted guns from a dealer. I'd guess that the charges involve officers buying unlisted guns and reselling them to private persons who wanted an unlisted firearm. Since California requires all sales to go through an FFL, and also as I recall requires handgun sales to be reported to the State, there can't be an argument that these were true "straw sales," intended to hide the identity of the ultimate owner.
15 Comments | Leave a comment
The writer says,.."larger capacity clip" ? Clueless...what is a large capacity clip ? No such thing ever existed ! I guess the moron meant 'standard capacity magazine' !
1) Does CA license dealers?
2) If not, then how can CA place any requirements on a dealer or on firearms IF one allows that the feds have control over things that have passed in interstate commerce?
3) Would not the CA infringe or impinge on the federal power over interstate commerce?
We can't freaking have it both ways.
Either the feds have the power, which they do not constitutionally have, or CA has some power BUT then the 2nd amendment, which of course has no binding on CA as per Marshall in Barrron, would totally eliminate any federal or state oversight of keeping and bearing arms, leaving on the misuse of an arm that endangers others to the purview of the states since the feds have no granted punishment authority over arms.
....Yeah, California licenses and inspects dealers and requires Dealers Report of Sales ( DROS ) be sent to Sacramento.
I thought there are provisions under CA law for personal sales between individuals, limited to 1-2 annually.
I guess my memory is incorrect.
CA does have a provsison, called a PPT, but buyer must be DROS'd & wait the required 10days
What was that court case a few months ago where someone who qualified for a discount on a pistol bought it intending to sell it to his brother, which was (at least at that time) the definition of a straw sale.
If these were off list guns bought for resale, I don't see how they can avoid being straw sales.
But of course, these were purchases by police, the "only ones".
My opinion is that in their zeal to limit, thwart, inconvenience and prevent sales of all firearms, several states, California, Massachusetts, and others, have created laws and regulations that are so vague as to become traps for hapless, law-abiding citizens. For example, what is the difference between me purchasing a firearm twelve years ago and then selling it privately or presenting it as a gift, and doing the same thing ten minutes after I purchase it? It seems straw purchasing is in the mind of the enforcer, and the mens rea be damned.
In addition, why should police and other LEO be able to buy firearms ordinary citizens cannot? What about equal protection? I would reverse this kind of regulation, limiting the type of arms police forces are allowed to use!
Like many gun laws, the federal law prohibiting straw purchases is not intended to protect the public or to keep weapons out of the hands of unlawful owners. Rather it is intended to help create a complicated plethora of laws which are unclear and designed to snare unwitting people, creating an atmosphere of fear and curtailing the legal trade of firearms.
The man in question was a former LEO who was able to get a discount on the weapon his uncle (I believe it was) wanted to purchase. He did everything right, transferring the gun through an FFL and getting the required check on "uncle". He was not charged with transferring it out of state illegally, or to an illegal recipient, but since the ATF form asks if you are purchasing it for yourself, he was convicted of lying on the form. The court decision was that since his uncle gave him the money in advance he was buying it for his uncle. If he had given it to his uncle or sold it to him later, there would have been no case. If the purpose of the law was to protect the public, it would be easy enough to have the language imply that you could not make a straw purchase for the purpose of delivering the arm to an unlawful recipient. Thankfully we have the ATF and the legal system to look out for the well-being of society.
Never forget the profound words of the Arizona cop objecting to the then-pending repeal of AZ's concealed carry permit requirement, and the prospect that any non-felon over the required age would be able to carry a concealed weapon legally -
"Then we won't have anything to charge 'em with when they're not doing anything."
Since this trial is in Federal court, CA law is not directly at issue. Federal law also prohibits being in the business of selling firearms without an FFL. (18 USC 922(a))
The apparent motivation for the accused to engage in the behaviors for which they are being prosecuted would seem to be CA-law based, i.e. the Roster of Handguns Approved for Sale. Among Californians, the Roster is roundly despised.
The second amendment does not represent an "authority" that the federal .gov has, but rather it's a limit on the actions of the feral .gov (which they haven't always respected). It does, however, take precedence over anything a state might try to do. If the state hasn't seceded, they're still bound by it.
look at me public may name is [email protected] is my email and youtube 1414614-3788 and 14145954513 also google presentkingusa and i also file in madison fed in wisconsin and milwaukee wis i file court notices first in milwaukee fed court i am here in wash dc waiting to hear back about working with me as he took oath to due via title 17 and title 18 code of copyrights fed term 5 yr 250 k if broke which wall street and all buniness money that goes through it is sieze under what b.obama took oath which is article 9 section 10 of usc. please send email of this to 3 people you dont know each day/
It's 5 guns in a calendar year. So your memory in incorrect.
Those quoting the Abramski case need to read it first.
1. The purchaser bought the gun as "LEO" when he had been fired from that job 2 years prior!
2. The uncle wrote a check prior to the purchase writing in the memo - for xyz gun.
3. Had the purchaser and uncle simply exchanged gifts - no money would have changed hands and no evidence would exist.
"there can't be an argument that these were true "straw sales," intended to hide the identity of the ultimate owner."
Abramski suggests that is not the set of conditions which BATF and SCOTUS call a 'straw sale'.
It looks like the deputies will be defending against 'dealing in firearms without a license' - buying and reselling for profit.