Methuen Man Charged with Straw Purchase of Glock Firearms

Matter of semantics:

"I bought it for my wife" [for her birthday].

"I bought it for my wife" [because she doesnt have a ltc]

And

"I bought it for my wife" [because she couldn't get the transfer]

Are all different legally speaking. Option A is a gift and is clearly covered as an exception on the 4473. Option 2 is a straw purchase, and option 3 is a violation of CMR 500 section 7.

Who paid for the gun and whether it was a gift are literally the questions that need to be asked and resolved for a straw purchase violation. Straws look at whether the other person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.
They go way beyond if the final posessor is a prohibited person. Don't believe me? Next time your at a shop whip out your cell phone and call a friend that's a gun owner and not a pp.........start talking about the price and if he likes the gun or not....mention you could pick it up for him.......within earshot of the clerk......come back to nes and let us know how that works out for you.
 
They go way beyond if the final posessor is a prohibited person. Don't believe me? Next time your at a shop whip out your cell phone and call a friend that's a gun owner and not a pp.........start talking about the price and if he likes the gun or not....mention you could pick it up for him.......within earshot of the clerk......come back to nes and let us know how that works out for you.
I had almost this same scenario play out recently.

Was at a shop with a friend, he saw a new shotgun he wanted.

Said he didn't have the space for it/budget, since the shop didn't give him what he was looking for on a trade.

I offered to buy the Mossberg he was looking to sell and the clerk got all squirrelly. Seems me handing him cash for the shotgun he walked in there looking to sell, then him using those funds to buy a different shotgun was too close to the line for the clerk.
 
They look at a hell of a lot more than that. You can be not prohibited in any sense, and STILL get whacked on a straw. If the money flows in the wrong direction you can get whacked
on a straw.

EG- Bob and Jim are both non-prohibited persons. Bob is out at a dealer somewhere and sees a gun that he know Jim really wants. Bob buys this gun with the intent of selling it to Jim. Bob has just committed a felony. Bob cannot be indemnified from the offense even if he washes the gun through another dealer before it gets sold to Jim. Now, if they can both keep their
f***ing mouths shut, then nobody ever knows who intended what, etc, and the sleeping dogs lie. If something or someone goes full retard, then they could both be on the hook for
felonies... just for "attempting to buy a gun the wrong way".

It's literally that f***ed, look up "Abramski" supreme court case poor decision...

-Mike

Sounds more like a misapplication of law- Bob is acting as a unlicensed dealer, not a straw purchaser, but the other half of the straw purchase rules have to go with wanting to not appear on the paperwork for having the gun- I ignored this aspect as this is Massachusetts and all transactions are logged through the MIRCS system.
 
Sounds more like a misapplication of law- Bob is acting as a unlicensed dealer, not a straw purchaser, but the other half of the straw purchase rules have to go with wanting to not appear on the paperwork for having the gun- I ignored this aspect as this is Massachusetts and all transactions are logged through the MIRCS system.

nope, read abramski.
 
I had almost this same scenario play out recently.

Was at a shop with a friend, he saw a new shotgun he wanted.

Said he didn't have the space for it/budget, since the shop didn't give him what he was looking for on a trade.

I offered to buy the Mossberg he was looking to sell and the clerk got all squirrelly. Seems me handing him cash for the shotgun he walked in there looking to sell, then him using those funds to buy a different shotgun was too close to the line for the clerk.
One caveat.....I'm not advocating that taking advantage of a good deal for a friend you know is not a pp should be against the law. Just quoting what the law is.
 
One caveat.....I'm not advocating that taking advantage of a good deal for a friend you know is not a pp should be against the law. Just quoting what the law is.
Maybe I need to be more clear.

He and I went to a shop, he wanted to trade/sell a Mossberg towards a well engraved 1930's A-5.

They were only offering about 50% of what they had discussed originally, which left him short.

I offered to buy it from him for what he expected, he agreed, I handed him cash with the expectation that the shop would do the transfer.

The clerk was uncomfortable with me handing the cash to my friend, transferring his shotgun to me, and having him use what was my cash as part of his payment for the new shotgun.

(This was in PA, near my office)
 
What qualifies as a "straw" purchase isn't all that complication.
1. it's only sales from dealer (it's lying on the 4473).
2. it's buying a gun that will not be a "gift" to someone else.
3. it's intending to not keep the gun yourself.

It's all about you Intentions, that why it's hard to prosecute, they need to establish what you intended at the time of the purchase. Talking about it, sending a text, accepting a check with a note saying its for the gun (this happened).
The status of the final recipient of the gun does not matter.

What defines a "police officer" in this state? If I get sworn in as a "Special Police Officer" in Boston and work for a security company, am I LEO for the purchase of a new Glock from a MA FFL? What if I was a Constable, would that qualify? Or do you need to be a state or local municipal LEO? This state and its laws are confusing!

Sworn LEO, Fed, State, Municipal, County (not civil process div)
No
No
Yes
 
Back in the day, I talked with a guy online who was a Special deputy or something in another county. That was good enough to get a Glock from some dealer or other.
 
Back in the day, I talked with a guy online who was a Special deputy or something in another county. That was good enough to get a Glock from some dealer or other.
And it was posted by someone that a dealer was selling P365 in MA, but that's not lawful either. Some dealers are willing to take a risk. There was one that got caught selling Glocks, now he's the AG's bi@#$#$ch. It's all about what someone considers an acceptable risk. There are plenty of less risky, even unquestionably legal, ways of buying a Glock.
 
I've sold a few Glocks that I bought on the badge. It was never short turnaround though, and they were all purchased/used often. I've never gotten a call or visit from anyone. I generally sell mine off and upgrade if there are generation changes that I'm interested in.
 
I remember a few years ago when Deval Patrick was screaming about gun show loopholes and etc.
GOAL cited the fact that there had never been a single prosecution for a straw purchase in the Commonwealth. Apparently we can't say that anymore.
Not Commonwealth prosecution. Federal Indictment.
 
Not Commonwealth prosecution. Federal Indictment.
In any case, there is a prosecution for a straw purchase occurring in Massachusetts. The purchase happened at a Massachusetts gun store and it appears the illegal transfer took place via the Massachusetts FA 10 portal.
This should lead to an investigation of all law-enforcement personal transfers.
 
He can buy all the Glocks he wants, without having to misrepresent himself to a dealer.

They also used the term "straw" here, which makes it sound like there are other elements being left out of the narrative that create a straw scenario.

-Mike
It's right in the article.

During an interview with law enforcement, Watson acknowledged that he used his Cape Cod Community College identification card when he purchased both Glock firearms. He stated he used that ID because he did not think he could purchase the firearms without it. He also acknowledged that if the firearms dealers had understood that he was not a police officer with arrest powers, they would not have sold him the firearms. Watson further stated that he knew his girlfriend, a civilian, could not purchase a Glock Model 26 herself and that he purchased the firearm for her.
 
Back
Top Bottom