HARRYM
NES Member
-
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.
I would hope the straw buyer gets the book thrown at her.
- Thread starter HARRYM
- Start date
I'm aware that this question about what constitutes a straw purchase was settled long ago (the discount shotgun uncle/nephew case) but I have to wonder a few things...
Was the end recipient an LTC holder? If not, was he a prohibited person? What is he being charged with specifically?
Was the end recipient an LTC holder? If not, was he a prohibited person? What is he being charged with specifically?
Last edited:
HARRYM
NES Member
YES! Thanks for picking up on that. I actually meant to mention that.
- - - Updated - - -
He was not eligible and had at least 1 prior gun charge.
If he was not a prohibited person, why did he try to use a straw buyer in NH?
Granted, any law abiding citizen should be able to purchase any firearm in other states. This would quick moot the MA stupid list.
Granted, any law abiding citizen should be able to purchase any firearm in other states. This would quick moot the MA stupid list.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,080
- Likes
- 54,288
My guess is a combination of mouth diarrhea + clueless about gun laws. He probably made a deal with her to do it, but didn't impress upon her how serious an offense it was (for fear of spooking her), so when the gun store employee asked an otherwise benign question she gave away the fact that it wasn't for her.
I'm aware - Abramski - that's why I mentioned the previous case.
My question is what he's being charged with, whether he's an LTC holder, and whether he's a prohibited person.
LTC is irrelevant, we're talking federal law here. Strawing a gun is illegal. Propositioning someone else for a straw is illegal. Lying on a 4473 is illegal. So that's an easy 2+ felonies right there. (I say 2+ because depending on circumstances they might use her to send him down the river and let her off so they can seal the coffin easily, depending on how dumb she was. If he's a PP that might be another thing, but if the transfer never happened it might mitigate that, cause they can't get him on FIP unless they have video of him fondling the gun in the store.
ETA: Down the road when this case is disposed of the feds have a search engine you can use if you really want to find the case and all the gory details. They "charge" for it but if you don't download a shitload of records every year it won't cost much or anything (there's an annual freebee allotment for those that sign up under some law ensuring public access to records.)
The sentencing stuff is a fun read, your eyes will probably glaze over.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
I think this is it here... https://www.pacer.gov/
-Mike
Last edited:
I don't think Frizzle was asking about him being a PP or having a LTC in regards to criminal charges, but out of curiosity. If the person was a PP and wanted a gun it makes sense that they would try getting one through a straw purchase, but if the person has a LTC not so much.
Right, sort of. I could see (since the feds consider a frame to be a firearm while MA doesn't) and LTC holder in MA having a friend in NH order a non-compliant pistol, then doing a frame transfer to MA which gets flagged and caught by the BATFE... Or to ask someone who's moving to MA from NH to buy a non-compliant pistol before they change residence, to sell once it's legally possessed in state. Who knows if that's what happened here, probably not that, since it's easier to just do a transfer yourself.
In the Abramski case, the end buyer (not the initial purchaser) was not a prohibited person and passed his own NICS when the gun was transferred to him. The police found receipts for the check sent from the end buyer to the initial purchaser, and for FFL transfer. This was during a warrantless search of the home of the initial purchaser, and the court found that his false statement to the BATFE made a warrant unnecessary (despite investigators not knowing of the straw purchase before hand). The court conclusion (and the dissent for that matter) suggested that had the end buyer not written the check before the initial purchase, it may not have been an issue.
I'm wondering, if no purchase was made, what the end buyer is being charged with. He never took possession of the firearm - the firearm was never even purchased, so it was never in possession of the would-be initial purchaser (who would have then sold it to him). Plenty of drug cases have gone down the toilet when a buyer paid for drugs that the dealer never had to begin with, or that the buyer never took possession of. Unless he met with an ATF agent and there was some kind of sting, I don't see what law the would-be end buyer violated. Obviously the initial purchaser broke the law by lying on the form, even if she never took possession.
Pure hypothesis on my part, but I'm guessing the would-be end buyer either has no LTC and/or is a prohibited person, and was discovered during the investigation to be in illegal possession of a firearm in MA... Wouldn't be surprised if he was a prohibited person, as well. We'll see, I guess.
Without going into gory details, nothing would get "flagged" here (feds don't monitor dealer to dealer transfers, at least not directly) although the dealer might cockblock the whole thing based on the modality/stupidity of the transfer (yeah send this to bob jones even though my name is bill jones) etc.
If I was going to bet money this lowell guy is a thug lyfe type.
Go digging around in US code and I'm sure you'll find something saying even the act of propositioning a straw is illegal.
Drugs are 1000x simpler than guns in Federal law.
10 bucks says the woman ran her mouth about it, so you have intent and possibly even money changing hands. That's more than enough to bag someone. If she was smart and shut the **** up from point 0 there's a
good possibility the whole case fails. But she obviously isn't- otherwise it would have never been detected
to begin with. (it doesn't take rocket appliances to avoid attracting the attention of an FFL on such matters).
I doubt it, these are usually sidebar news articles. The media doesn't care about this stuff, really. Go into pacer after the sentencing and you'll find all the stuff there.
-Mike
Agreed, 100%.
I've heard this mentioned before but I've been all over it with a family of lawyers/judges to help, and just can't seem to find it. 18 U.S. Code § 922, 924 and 929 cover trafficking and what was applied to straw purchases in the Abramski case but don't say a thing about it. 18 U.S. Code § 371 would seem like the obvious culprit but case law (and plenty of time before the SCOTUS) says otherwise. I definitely wouldn't want to be a test case, though.
I would tend to thinks so, but with the climate lately, especially in MA, I'd think that "Straw purchase banned guns across state lines! LEO heroes save us from evil guns and free states!" reads better than "Guy has guns but no license and/or is felon, has had them for some time, discovered during different investigation - LEOs never knew".
Sounds like a plan, appreciate the tip.
fencer
NES Member
This case seems pretty cut and dry. Where I always get confused is what if you are purchasing a firearm to be presented as a gift? Or what if you are buying a handgun " for your wife". Isn't that technically a straw purchase?
Palladin
NES Member
Federal
When they talked about it they committed a conspiracy so they both can be hung on that assuming they were charged with it. It's obvious they both were involved because they had a meeting of the minds, and they attempted to commit the actual crime which was too unlawfully purchase the gun. The elements might vary somewhat in the federal system but you have one person who initiated the act to involve someone else in a crime, the conversation to circumvent the law or do something illegal, and the only sticky part is whether the second person, the woman, was a willing participant or was being coerced. If she was forced into the act under threat of physical harm that could help get her off but he would still be left holding the bag.
Federal. And Trump will give zero ****s about this, just like the last 3+ presidents. It really is a stupid feel good law anyways. For every one straw it catches 100 probably get away with it because they weren't as dumb.
Anyone else think about the stupidity of the laws involved here? This is a case of two people who are likely going to wind up in prison because one of them gave the other one some money and said "hey, can you go buy me a piece of metal and plastic?" Because that piece of metal and plastic is a scary gun instead of a TV table, they're both going to pick up multiple felonies for a victimless crime. ![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,239
- Likes
- 33,157
I would guess the following. . . .
I'm thinking he was dumb enough to already have another gun charge this MONTH. The fact that he's in NH trying to buy a gun through some chippy means he's not that bright. MD is the likely problem.
Gosh. I can picture 1,000 dirtbags pressuring 1,000 low-self-esteem women in my head over the years. Gahhh!!!! (Although on the flipside, my tenant from hell had a different guy "living with her" every time I encountered her. She was an expert manipulator as well. As soon as the $$ stopped, she b-slapped them to the curb. LOL)
Garys
NES Member
The federal gov't can charge defendants with conspiracy to commit a crime even if no crime actually is committed. In this case, if it turned out that he gave her money, it seems likely that is part of the charge even though she never actually bought the gun.
knfmn, your point is silly. This was not an innocent transaction, it was exactly what the straw purchase law was meant to stop. This isn't about interstate purchase of firearm. The violation would be identical if she lived in MA and had a LTC. She was buying a gun for another person under false pretense. I have little doubt that his intention was to use the gun to commit a crime.
With luck, he'll go away for a good chunk of time. She'll probably get a shorter sentence, but has the added bonus of being a PP. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
knfmn, your point is silly. This was not an innocent transaction, it was exactly what the straw purchase law was meant to stop. This isn't about interstate purchase of firearm. The violation would be identical if she lived in MA and had a LTC. She was buying a gun for another person under false pretense. I have little doubt that his intention was to use the gun to commit a crime.
With luck, he'll go away for a good chunk of time. She'll probably get a shorter sentence, but has the added bonus of being a PP. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Anyone else think about the stupidity of the laws involved here? This is a case of two people who are likely going to wind up in prison because one of them gave the other one some money and said "hey, can you go buy me a piece of metal and plastic?" Because that piece of metal and plastic is a scary gun instead of a TV table, they're both going to pick up multiple felonies for a victimless crime.
Yeah, it is pretty stupid, but the NRA and others will practically celebrate this stupid bullshit till the cows come home, so we're pretty much stuck with it. Even a lot of gun owners have been brainwashed into thinking BG checks/PP restriction/straw bans are all "good ideas".
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
People have been sold on the "well, stopping that gun coulda possibly prevented a cryme from happenin" BS. Meanwhile the thugs still got the guns the next day from someone who wasn't as stupid. It was all invented to make someone "feel good" but that's about all it actually does. -Mike
Nick Fury
NES Member
I was in one of those "Hookset" gun shops and witnessed a transaction that went like this: dude brings out special order Charter Arms snub nose magnum and places it on the counter in front of obviously clueless chick and asks if that is what she ordered. She blankly looked at it for several seconds before turning to this huge bald headed prison tat guy standing a few steps away and asked him. He said it was. She of course then declined to be shown how it functioned. Ran into them later down the road where they were buying ammo... What some will do for a little penis.
Similar threads
