Boston PD 'Straw' Purchase

[Knuckle Dragger]

It was only a matter of time before this happened.

Boston police officer charged with buying 2 pistols for civilians

His lawyer, J. W. Carney Jr., said in a statement that his client is accused of buying the guns for two friends, at a discount available to officers. The friends were licensed to carry guns and legally obtained the firearms from Karani, Carney said.

Ex-Boston cop accused of buying guns that went to gangs



A couple of my thoughts:
1) This guy is screwed per US v. Abramski:

2) This just underscore the BS that is the LEO exception. I'm not aware of any Massachuetts LE agency that require their people to provide their own firearms for 'official use'. Some perhaps permit it under certain circumstances, but Boston PD isn't likely one of them.

On both occasions, Karani presented his police identification card and said the guns would be for official use only, the indictment said.

3) Note that this is FEDERAL charge. But don't be surprised if the feds had the full cooperation of Massachusetts authorities.

 

[DarthRevan]

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm glad that cops get boned on the same laws as Joe Blow.
When is the union going to start pushing for another exception?

 

[oppressed]

"Karani allegedly used his police identification to acquire the weapons, which may not be purchased by civilians, and certified on federal forms that the guns were for official police use," prosecutors said.

I've never seen a question or box on a federal form certifying that guns be used for "official police use only".

Does this mean that a police officer's personal private property cannot ever be sold to a non-law enforcement officer? What is the legal time limit between the original purchase and the sale of a gun before it is no longer considered a "straw purchase"?

False fact that Glocks may not be purchased by civilians.

 

[W.E.C]

Something smells here.

 

[Spanz]

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm glad that cops get boned on the same laws as Joe Blow.
When is the union going to start pushing for another exception?

i generally agree. I think cops should be shielded from the bull shit politically correct crap that goes around. but when they are right out breaking serious laws, they need to be held accountable.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

What's wrong with buying a gun for someone else if that person is licensed?

Maybe he didn't answer this question correctly:

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer thefirearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and mayproceed to question 11.b. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.)

 

[DW357]

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm glad that cops get boned on the same laws as Joe Blow.
When is the union going to start pushing for another exception?

Agreed. So how did he get caught? Of course it's legal for cops to sell guns to civilians but did he transfer these guns just minutes after purchase or something???

 

[not new guy]

Was it for the discount or to get his buddies glocks?

 

[Matt_SERE]

Not being a LEO myself is the question regarding 'official use' on a .gov form or a form from Glock?

ANSWER from KD's second link:

Boston police said Karani resigned due to these pending charges in November. Boston police spokesman Michael McCarthy said the department's anti-corruption unit initiated the investigation.

"Karani allegedly used his police identification to acquire the weapons, which may not be purchased by civilians, and certified on federal forms that the guns were for official police use," prosecutors said. "Straw purchases interfere with firearm regulation and record keeping, and federal law makes it a crime to knowingly make false statements to a firearms dealer in connection with the sale of a firearm."

 

[Palladin]

Good.

 

[pupchow]

And the AGO had nothing to do with this? Right....

 

[Waher]

Agreed. So how did he get caught? Of course it's legal for cops to sell guns to civilians but did he transfer these guns just minutes after purchase or something???

His buddy was a known gang member, not yet convicted of a felony, caught later at a murder scene with the gun the officer purchased.

 

[cockpitbob]

They know about 2. I have to wonder if that's not the tip of the iceberg.

 

[92G]

Is s a product of Trump's justice dept? Or unrelated?

either way its about time the laws are applied evenly.

 

[Terminator03]

His buddy was a known gang member, not yet convicted of a felony, caught later at a murder scene with the gun the officer purchased.

This is what made the difference in this case, and what got him screwed. There is a VERY fine line when it comes to resale becoming a straw purchase in the the eyes of the law inmo. A good example is you buy a gun as an impulse buy, get home and realize you suddenly need a heating system, and don't have the cash because you just spent it on said impulse buy. In this case the cop bought guns with the full intent of reselling them. The big glitch is that he obviously didn't vet his "friends/customers" very well. He not only exposed himself with potential straw charges like anyone else, but selling to scumbag gangbangers, he risked his career as well, so deserved to lose it in my opinion.

 

[oppressed]

"His buddy was a known gang member, not yet convicted of a felony, caught later at a murder scene with the gun the officer purchased. " --waher



If the news clip and the statement from his attorney are accurate, the guns were sold to two friends who are licenced to carry and legal to buy, then stolen from them with one gun subsequently ending up with the perp they caught.

The story portrays is as guns being funneled directly into gangs. I don't know what kind of people the guy he sold it to are or if they were facing charges. I don't know how his friends would have a valid LTC if they were known to police as gang bangers. Will have to see how the story shakes out when some more facts come to light.

 

[DrBurnsides]

Aren't Glock "blue label" stupidly discounted? He should have sat on them for a few months. Shot a few rounds through them. Said "ick" loudly. Then sold them. he was probably arrogant about it. And pissed somebody off. Edit. Saw that the guns got traced from murder. Well there ya go.

 

[SKumar]

i generally agree. I think cops should be shielded from the bull shit politically correct crap that goes around. but when they are right out breaking serious laws, they need to be held accountable.

Ha! "Qualified Immunity" is a cop's saving grace from prosecution. Abused way more than appropriated applied.

 

[dhuze]

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm glad that cops get boned on the same laws as Joe Blow.
When is the union going to start pushing for another exception?

Laws are for everyone, not just us peons.

 

[92G]

alternative explanation is that the problem is far worse, but they're letting one of their less favorites fry to provide an illusion of justice. having grown up in chicago it is well known that a huge # of the gang's firearms come directly from police or their so-called "evidence" bins. every few years the PD would hang someone out to dry and make it look like that person was the bad apple by shuttling the firearms to the gangs, when in reality the bad apples were far more abundant. it's all about making the sheep feel safe.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Federal charges but the story includes he was buying them "for official LE purposes." My guess is he bought them and turned around and sold them very quickly through a personal transfer. Otherwise the Feds wouldn't be charging him. And yes, MA likely cooperated so the Feds could see the personal transfer side timing. My guess is this guy has done this a bunch but the Feds feel these 2 instances, 1 tied to a murder, could be proven on the federal side. My second guess is that they will squeeze him for info on other transactions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bigblue]

"Karani allegedly used his police identification to acquire the weapons, which may not be purchased by civilians, and certified on federal forms that the guns were for official police use," prosecutors said.

I've never seen a question or box on a federal form certifying that guns be used for "official police use only".

Does this mean that a police officer's personal private property cannot ever be sold to a non-law enforcement officer? What is the legal time limit between the original purchase and the sale of a gun before it is no longer considered a "straw purchase"?

False fact that Glocks may not be purchased by civilians.

The issue isn't "official use", the issue is with the Abramski definition of a straw purchase (which is bullshit btw). That case determined that even a lawful purchase and lawful transfer (done through an FFL) to a lawfully licensed eventual owner of that firearm is a straw purchase if the intention was not for the purchaser to own the firearm.

Essentially Abramski determined that the lawfulness of transfer and eventual ownership of the firearm is irrelevant to the act of a straw purchase. All reasonable logic would dictate that a straw purchase is an act to buy a firearm for a person who was unable to buy it themselves but no, that's not what the court decided. Idiots.

This case is nearly identical to Abramski too so this is pretty much open and shut as far as established law goes.

 

[ISOTOX]

 

[tuna]

The issue isn't "official use", the issue is with the Abramski definition of a straw purchase (which is bullshit btw). That case determined that even a lawful purchase and lawful transfer (done through an FFL) to a lawfully licensed eventual owner of that firearm is a straw purchase if the intention was not for the purchaser to own the firearm.

Essentially Abramski determined that the lawfulness of transfer and eventual ownership of the firearm is irrelevant to the act of a straw purchase. All reasonable logic would dictate that a straw purchase is an act to buy a firearm for a person who was unable to buy it themselves but no, that's not what the court decided. Idiots.

This case is nearly identical to Abramski too so this is pretty much open and shut as far as established law goes.

Isn't this definition why it is such a legal nightmare to try to buy a gun as a gift?

Hope this is the tip of the iceberg. After this, they can start cracking down on cops selling confiscated fireworks.

 

[Len-2A Training]

As is typical of media reports, lots of flash but short on facts.

LEO purchases fill out the same 4473 and FA-10 as anyone else. NOWHERE does it ask if it is for "police use only" on those forms.

There are lots of threads here on NES where people said that their buddy (LEO) was going to buy a gun (usually a Glock) for them at the police price. Per the Abramski case, doing so will screw both parties, we now know that.

Some (hardly all) LEO purchases have them fill out forms stating that the gun is only for duty use, which is a falsehood in 99% of the cases as duty use guns are almost always provided by your agency these days in MA (probably except for very small departments out West where they are part-timers). Back when I joined the PD as a part-timer, we were required to purchase and supply all our own gear including firearm (that had to be approved by the chief), but that was a very long time ago. NYPD still requires new officers to buy their own guns from a short list of approved guns.

The for "duty use only" is a fabrication of the AG's CMR, it is not in MGL and it is NOT in US Code either. So it is a civil offense if violated, not criminal (thus the news story is BS). Most LEO purchases thru MA dealers didn't require any chief's letter stating for duty use only, only recently has the Maddog AG gone after dealers to enforce this (yes it is in the CMR). In almost all cases, the LEO purchases are either for off-duty carry (AG wouldn't approve) or range guns (AG certainly wouldn't approve) since duty guns are supplied by agencies (see my comments above).

No doubt there was a pattern here of numerous guns being bought and sold, that caused them to look carefully at this officer. The gun later used at a crime scene brings more scrutiny on the officer as well. So now they will grind him to either put him away or rat out other officers to save his own hide.

 

[amm5061]

As is typical of media reports, lots of flash but short on facts.

LEO purchases fill out the same 4473 and FA-10 as anyone else. NOWHERE does it ask if it is for "police use only" on those forms.

There are lots of threads here on NES where people said that their buddy (LEO) was going to buy a gun (usually a Glock) for them at the police price. Per the Abramski case, doing so will screw both parties, we now know that.

Some (hardly all) LEO purchases have them fill out forms stating that the gun is only for duty use, which is a falsehood in 99% of the cases as duty use guns are almost always provided by your agency these days in MA (probably except for very small departments out West where they are part-timers). Back when I joined the PD as a part-timer, we were required to purchase and supply all our own gear including firearm (that had to be approved by the chief), but that was a very long time ago. NYPD still requires new officers to buy their own guns from a short list of approved guns.

The for "duty use only" is a fabrication of the AG's CMR, it is not in MGL and it is NOT in US Code either. So it is a civil offense if violated, not criminal (thus the news story is BS). Most LEO purchases thru MA dealers didn't require any chief's letter stating for duty use only, only recently has the Maddog AG gone after dealers to enforce this (yes it is in the CMR). In almost all cases, the LEO purchases are either for off-duty carry (AG wouldn't approve) or range guns (AG certainly wouldn't approve) since duty guns are supplied by agencies (see my comments above).

No doubt there was a pattern here of numerous guns being bought and sold, that caused them to look carefully at this officer. The gun later used at a crime scene brings more scrutiny on the officer as well. So now they will grind him to either put him away or rat out other officers to save his own hide.

Just curious, but does the "for duty use" language also apply to the LEO AWB exemption? What are the chances she might start going after dealers for AWB infractions for selling to LEOs? Not that I imagine many shops are even willing to sell those items to LEOs now.

 

[Lank]

He will walk most likely.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Just curious, but does the "for duty use" language also apply to the LEO AWB exemption? What are the chances she might start going after dealers for AWB infractions for selling to LEOs? Not that I imagine many shops are even willing to sell those items to LEOs now.

Not per MGL change in 2014 for active LEOs, that is clear. Might it be in her CMR? Unsure!

 

[drgrant]

Agreed. So how did he get caught? Of course it's legal for cops to sell guns to civilians but did he transfer these guns just minutes after purchase or something???

Typical straw type deal. Guy buys guns for resale, gun shows up at an "event", gun gets traced, people start digging, game over. This guy may have even been stupid enough to run his mouth to an agent (well, or the buyers were- all they had to say was "Oh so and so is a cop, I gave him some cash to get me a gun" and that's all you really need for an indictment for a straw- an i"ndication that someone propositioned someone else to buy a gun, plus money changing hands. "

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

As is typical of media reports, lots of flash but short on facts.

LEO purchases fill out the same 4473 and FA-10 as anyone else. NOWHERE does it ask if it is for "police use only" on those forms.

There are lots of threads here on NES where people said that their buddy (LEO) was going to buy a gun (usually a Glock) for them at the police price. Per the Abramski case, doing so will screw both parties, we now know that.

Some (hardly all) LEO purchases have them fill out forms stating that the gun is only for duty use, which is a falsehood in 99% of the cases as duty use guns are almost always provided by your agency these days in MA (probably except for very small departments out West where they are part-timers). Back when I joined the PD as a part-timer, we were required to purchase and supply all our own gear including firearm (that had to be approved by the chief), but that was a very long time ago. NYPD still requires new officers to buy their own guns from a short list of approved guns.

The for "duty use only" is a fabrication of the AG's CMR, it is not in MGL and it is NOT in US Code either. So it is a civil offense if violated, not criminal (thus the news story is BS). Most LEO purchases thru MA dealers didn't require any chief's letter stating for duty use only, only recently has the Maddog AG gone after dealers to enforce this (yes it is in the CMR). In almost all cases, the LEO purchases are either for off-duty carry (AG wouldn't approve) or range guns (AG certainly wouldn't approve) since duty guns are supplied by agencies (see my comments above).

No doubt there was a pattern here of numerous guns being bought and sold, that caused them to look carefully at this officer. The gun later used at a crime scene brings more scrutiny on the officer as well. So now they will grind him to either put him away or rat out other officers to save his own hide.

It's also worth noting that effectively, even in this case, the "LE exemption" that is being made hay of, is effectively a "fart in the outhouse" with regards to the reason this guy is being indicted. It really has nothing to do with it.

-Mike