Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Straw Purchase Law
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SMS" data-source="post: 2391583" data-attributes="member: 42"><p>Common misconception. Buying for a prohibited person is only <em>one</em> possible element of a straw purchase. Buying a gun on behalf of <em>anyone</em> can be a straw purchase, regardless of whether or not they are prohibited.</p><p></p><p>Say you and I are not legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. If I can get a gun cheaper at Tinker AFB, you give me the money, and I go buy it for you, then we have participated in a straw purchase. </p><p></p><p>What I'm interested in is how the buyer in the OP transferred the Glock to his uncle out of state? Did he go through an FFL? If not, maybe they just piled on the charges to see what would stick.</p><p></p><p>(Edit: Just found the Supreme Court Briefs...he did use a dealer to transfer it but the damming evidence is that his uncle paid him in advance, with a check and even wrote "Glock 19" in the memo section of the check, LOL. The whole thing came to light when the man became a suspect in a bank robbery...DOH!)</p><p></p><p>iN 2009, PETITIONER</p><p>SPOKE TO HIS UNCLE, ANGEL ALVAREZ, A RESIDENT OF</p><p>PENNSYLVANIA, ABOUT ALVAREZ’S DESIRE TO PURCHASE A</p><p>GLOCK 19 HANDGUN. iBID.; J.a. 23A-24A, 26A. PETITIONER</p><p>OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE GUN FOR ALVAREZ FROM TOWN</p><p>POLICE SUPPLY, A FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSED DEALER IN</p><p>COLLINSVILLE, VIRGINIA THAT OFFERED DISCOUNTS TO POLICE</p><p>OFFICERS. PET. aPP. 3A; J.a. 24A. ON NOVEMBER 15,</p><p>2009, ALVAREZ SENT PETITIONER A CHECK FOR $400 WITH</p><p>“GLOCK 19 HANDGUN” WRITTEN IN THE MEMO LINE. PET.</p><p>aPP. 3A; J.a. 27A.</p><p>ON NOVEMBER 17, 2009, PETITIONER PURCHASED A</p><p>GLOCK 19 HANDGUN AND OTHER ITEMS WITH $2000 IN CASH</p><p>FROM tOWN POLICE sUPPLY, USING HIS EXPIRED POLICE</p><p>IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL TO OBTAIN THE DISCOUNT. PET.</p><p>aPP. 3A; SEE J.a. 30A-31A</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SMS, post: 2391583, member: 42"] Common misconception. Buying for a prohibited person is only [I]one[/I] possible element of a straw purchase. Buying a gun on behalf of [I]anyone[/I] can be a straw purchase, regardless of whether or not they are prohibited. Say you and I are not legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. If I can get a gun cheaper at Tinker AFB, you give me the money, and I go buy it for you, then we have participated in a straw purchase. What I'm interested in is how the buyer in the OP transferred the Glock to his uncle out of state? Did he go through an FFL? If not, maybe they just piled on the charges to see what would stick. (Edit: Just found the Supreme Court Briefs...he did use a dealer to transfer it but the damming evidence is that his uncle paid him in advance, with a check and even wrote "Glock 19" in the memo section of the check, LOL. The whole thing came to light when the man became a suspect in a bank robbery...DOH!) iN 2009, PETITIONER SPOKE TO HIS UNCLE, ANGEL ALVAREZ, A RESIDENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, ABOUT ALVAREZ’S DESIRE TO PURCHASE A GLOCK 19 HANDGUN. iBID.; J.a. 23A-24A, 26A. PETITIONER OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE GUN FOR ALVAREZ FROM TOWN POLICE SUPPLY, A FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSED DEALER IN COLLINSVILLE, VIRGINIA THAT OFFERED DISCOUNTS TO POLICE OFFICERS. PET. aPP. 3A; J.a. 24A. ON NOVEMBER 15, 2009, ALVAREZ SENT PETITIONER A CHECK FOR $400 WITH “GLOCK 19 HANDGUN” WRITTEN IN THE MEMO LINE. PET. aPP. 3A; J.a. 27A. ON NOVEMBER 17, 2009, PETITIONER PURCHASED A GLOCK 19 HANDGUN AND OTHER ITEMS WITH $2000 IN CASH FROM tOWN POLICE sUPPLY, USING HIS EXPIRED POLICE IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL TO OBTAIN THE DISCOUNT. PET. aPP. 3A; SEE J.a. 30A-31A [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Straw Purchase Law
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom