-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Boston PD 'Straw' Purchase
- Thread starter Knuckle Dragger
- Start date
It's actually the reason this situation exists in the first place. It is what enables cops to buy things from dealers that non cops are restricted from. If there was no exemption for cops, or better yet, no stupid restrictions on non-cops, then the cops buddies could just buy those guns themselves. It's more than just noise, despite not being the crime itself.
It does not relate to the Fed charges nor is it the motivation for the Fed charges. The LEO exemption is the motivation and reason behind the crime but past that, has nothing to do with the mechanics of the straw purchase. The LEO in question used an LEO discount in addition to the exemption to purchase the firearms in question same as Abramski, which I noted earlier. That's WHY he did the straw purchase but it doesn't change the act of the straw purchase.
Last edited:
tuna
NES Member
But I think the exemption is the driving force that was the reason for the straw purchase. If I can get 10% off a Remington 870 with a military discount, I don't think anyone would risk asking me to get them one since the reward is only $30 or $40 if they get it themself.
It's when you've got the chance to get a good deal, on something you can't get anyway, that makes it worth the risk.
The crime was the straw purchase because the guns are difficult to get for legal non-cops.
The spirit behind straw purchases is to stop legal purchases and "gifts" to people who aren't legal to have guns. The mass LEO exemptions just make a bigger mess out of an already messed up law.
It's when you've got the chance to get a good deal, on something you can't get anyway, that makes it worth the risk.
The crime was the straw purchase because the guns are difficult to get for legal non-cops.
The spirit behind straw purchases is to stop legal purchases and "gifts" to people who aren't legal to have guns. The mass LEO exemptions just make a bigger mess out of an already messed up law.
The guns are not difficult to get. I doubt this cop was even aware of the risk, or even read a 4473, etc. Most people are oblivious WRT straw purchase
regs and all the BS that surrounds them. Even with the ones that aren't, something like 90% falsely believe it only has to do with resale to prohibited
persons. This cop probably did it either to make himself some $ on the side or did it as a favor for two of his buddies, without realizing the
potential downstream ramifications. (if he did, he would have protected himself better, and theres about a dozen ways he could have done
that... lol)
-Mike
Last edited:
I doubt it. He already quit his job over this.
I think this is exactly right. Had the gun not turned up at an 'event', we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Yes and no. In Abramski, there was a 'smoking gun' (i.e. the $400 check with "Glock" in the memo field), that paved the way for charges against Abramski - evidence of a straw purchase. Same idea here. The so-called LEO exemption itself isn't an issue. It's more of a paper trail and evidence that indicates that this may have been a straw purchase. If Glocks were not a forbidden item with an LEO exemption, I don't think the straw purchase claim would be as strong.
dhuze
NES Member
So how long does one need to hang onto a gun before selling it to avoid some AG calling it a straw purchase? I get the whole straw purchase thing with regards to selling to a PP, but not when you do a lawful transfer to a law abiding citizen.
"A reasonable amount of time". Basically if you don't do repeated or obvious purchases that are immediately sold (like when the eventual buyer gives you a check with "Glock" on it to purchase the firearm for them).
It has nothing to do with time it has to do with the modalities of how the sale was made. "So and so listed this gun on gunbroker, I won it, I paid the auction and he sent it to my FFL" is different from "I gave so and so money to buy a gun for me" + kopsch finding a 4473 copy in the box with
someone else's name on it, or other supporting docs, etc.
The latter is a straw, the former, not so much.
-Mike
Last edited:
They are putting guns in the street that our lovely state says are not allowed.
Wish a leo could buy me a glock since i do not want to spend $800 for one on our forum
Feds make hay out of straws at random odd intervals all the time. Just not when its a couple of prominent antis that admit to orchestrating a straw purchase in a public article in a Boston newspaper.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
(don't get me started...) -Mike
Just to be clear, this is a federal charge. It's not at all improbable that that the AGO helped.
As to your first question, I don't think it's a matter of time. I think it's a matter of what kind of trail you leave behind. For Abramski it was a check from his uncle that pre-dated the purchase and basically proved that Abramski bought the gun with the intention of transferring it to another person.
This is a little less clear, I think, based upon what's been published. There's no check (or maybe there is???) that says Glock, but then the
question is 'why did this then police officer use his privileged position to buy something he didn't keep?' One of the things we don't know is the time between when he filled out the 4473 and the time he (presumably) filed an eFA-10. If that's four hours, he's screwed.
All the "for work purposes" or gang member friend stuff aside. If he had a prearranged deal to sell the gun(s) before he purchased them then he committed a straw purchase. Period. None of the other shit matters beyond the fact that it will make things worse for him in regard to extra charges.
You can buy a gun as an investment because you think you can make a few bucks of it down the line.
You can by a gun and decide to sell it 5 min later after you pull the trigger the first time and decide you don't like it.
You can buy a gun purely on a whim and later that night think "shit I shouldn't have spent the money. I'm gonna sell it."
The one thing you can not do is buy a gun that you already have an agreement to sell. Now I'm not talking about, hey I have a chance to buy this glock at free state prices and sell it to some ******* on NES for $900. That is just fine, legally speaking.
The problem is when you buy the gun for someone. For a specific person. In that case you are committing a felony when you answer yes to the first qualifying question on the 4473. "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"
Now the whole point of straw purchase laws is to make sure that anyone who buys a gun, from a dealer, goes through a BGC. So lets say someone on NES asked me to get them a glock down here at free state pricing and they would throw me $50 for my trouble.
Even if I bought the gun at a dealer and then sent it to an FFL in MA. (Let's assume for the purpose of this post that there was an FFL who would receive and transfer it) Then the NES member went through the process, had a BGC and picked up the gun. In that case the spirit of the straw purchase law would be satisfied. Since the end user did in fact go through a BGC before getting the gun. But that wouldn't change the fact that I'm still on the hook for a felony for lying on the form when I originally bought the gun.
All that being said, the last paragraph is why I hope they hang his ass out to dry. Because even if I did what I described in the last paragraph. Made absolutely sure that the person who bought the gun had a BGC and was approved for the purchase. I would still be strung up by the nuts and probably end up much worse off than this shitbag will when all is said and done.
I know I know. Long post is long. I do this shit for the noobs, and because I find it cathartic.![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
You can buy a gun as an investment because you think you can make a few bucks of it down the line.
You can by a gun and decide to sell it 5 min later after you pull the trigger the first time and decide you don't like it.
You can buy a gun purely on a whim and later that night think "shit I shouldn't have spent the money. I'm gonna sell it."
The one thing you can not do is buy a gun that you already have an agreement to sell. Now I'm not talking about, hey I have a chance to buy this glock at free state prices and sell it to some ******* on NES for $900. That is just fine, legally speaking.
The problem is when you buy the gun for someone. For a specific person. In that case you are committing a felony when you answer yes to the first qualifying question on the 4473. "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"
Now the whole point of straw purchase laws is to make sure that anyone who buys a gun, from a dealer, goes through a BGC. So lets say someone on NES asked me to get them a glock down here at free state pricing and they would throw me $50 for my trouble.
Even if I bought the gun at a dealer and then sent it to an FFL in MA. (Let's assume for the purpose of this post that there was an FFL who would receive and transfer it) Then the NES member went through the process, had a BGC and picked up the gun. In that case the spirit of the straw purchase law would be satisfied. Since the end user did in fact go through a BGC before getting the gun. But that wouldn't change the fact that I'm still on the hook for a felony for lying on the form when I originally bought the gun.
All that being said, the last paragraph is why I hope they hang his ass out to dry. Because even if I did what I described in the last paragraph. Made absolutely sure that the person who bought the gun had a BGC and was approved for the purchase. I would still be strung up by the nuts and probably end up much worse off than this shitbag will when all is said and done.
I know I know. Long post is long. I do this shit for the noobs, and because I find it cathartic.
A couple stray observations.
Many gun owners and/or supporters asked for this. It has been a prominent theme that we don't need more gun laws, we just need the current ones enforced. One of the big ones? Enforcement of straw purchases or attempts to buy that come back denied by NICS.
The whole concept behind straw purchases is a bunch of crap. The sole factor should be whether the person is prohibited by law from possessing said firearm.
LEO exemptions are also a bunch of crap. It is what enables things like this and the case out in CA to happen in the first place. If the laws applied equally there would be ZERO incentive for this. Well, other than to sell to criminals.
Many gun owners and/or supporters asked for this. It has been a prominent theme that we don't need more gun laws, we just need the current ones enforced. One of the big ones? Enforcement of straw purchases or attempts to buy that come back denied by NICS.
The whole concept behind straw purchases is a bunch of crap. The sole factor should be whether the person is prohibited by law from possessing said firearm.
LEO exemptions are also a bunch of crap. It is what enables things like this and the case out in CA to happen in the first place. If the laws applied equally there would be ZERO incentive for this. Well, other than to sell to criminals.
More frustrating wrt the application of that stupid law is that the feds routinely cut antis slack on it when they're playing little anti gun patty cake media games to try to show everyone how "inadequate " the laws are....
Too true Mike. I did LOL at the female reporter who got jammed up buying an AR when the FFL reported a straw purchase. ![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
IIRC there were 1 or 2 more that had problems. I never did end up finding out how it all turned out. The real kick in the ass is, even if she took a plea deal w/ no time or penalty, she won't even care that she is now a PP and has lost a civil right for life. Or even worse, when she finds out and tries to indignantly cry foul. Personal responsibility applying to all but her kind and all...
IIRC there were 1 or 2 more that had problems. I never did end up finding out how it all turned out. The real kick in the ass is, even if she took a plea deal w/ no time or penalty, she won't even care that she is now a PP and has lost a civil right for life. Or even worse, when she finds out and tries to indignantly cry foul. Personal responsibility applying to all but her kind and all...
Don't do that regularly, 'cuz "being in the business of..." requires an FFL. I'm not sure how a single purchase with the intent to sell and make money fits in, but I'm guessing it's not a good idea.
Simple, on Armslist, someone sells a firearm for 400 that can fetch 700. Buy it and then sell it, make 300. Investment purchase.
As long as you conform to the laws of the state the transaction occurs in, your good to go.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 9,613
- Likes
- 9,216
Cops flaunting the law is a problem...at the same time i feel no constitutional law was broken.
It makes little difference what i think though.
the issue at hand was buying them for somone else, outside the confines of a legal "gift".
It is unlikely the cop will be able to play this off as a paperwork error.
My only issue is MARK KELLY attempt to buy an ar15 in one state as a straw purchase to illegally sell it prive party across state line..he confessed to this act but was not prossicuted.
to me there is nothing suspicious about buying and selling a gun same day...perhap the gun you bought on GB wasnt the one you ment to buy and rediculius restocking fees made it impractical to send it back.....thats not a straw purchase.
It makes little difference what i think though.
the issue at hand was buying them for somone else, outside the confines of a legal "gift".
It is unlikely the cop will be able to play this off as a paperwork error.
My only issue is MARK KELLY attempt to buy an ar15 in one state as a straw purchase to illegally sell it prive party across state line..he confessed to this act but was not prossicuted.
to me there is nothing suspicious about buying and selling a gun same day...perhap the gun you bought on GB wasnt the one you ment to buy and rediculius restocking fees made it impractical to send it back.....thats not a straw purchase.
SKumar
NES Member
As I've said over and over again: DO WE NOT FACE THE SAME THREATS THAT POLICE DO?
The reason police carry firearms is not to take out criminals. It's for their self-defense.
E.Stoner
NES Member
There is a 95% chance the person selling the Glock for $800 is LEO.
