Ruger MKI vs. II's and III's

[Quiet]

Here in CT for the past couple of months I didn't see a MKI or MKII for less than $300.

I got tired of looking for a reasonably priced used gun, so last week I bought a new MKIII for $359.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk 2

That's MSRP for the model I bought (and is a better price than I paid.)

 

[CockedAndLocked]

That's MSRP for the model I bought (and is a better price than I paid.)

The one I bought from a local gun store new for $359 has an MSRP of $459. Here it is.....

http://ruger.com/mobile/products/10101.html

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk 2

 

[Fattman]

I paid 4 for my River MIII target in SS with bull barrel and think its worth every penny!

 

[Quiet]

Yup I paid thru the nose. :-(

Oh well, they were very nice and helpful, and I'm still satisfied with both the gun and the service. But still..... sigh.

 

[yogi]

I paid 4 for my River MIII target in SS with bull barrel and think its worth every penny!

I have the same one and paid about the same new two years ago. Easily 3k rounds through it and looking fine. Have put in a Majestic Arms speed strip kit and removed the magazine disconnect. Just ordered cool wood grips . Gun has been awesome! But it likes CCI ammo the best. If i had known MA would go full retard and this gun model would not be for sale, i would have bought 2 or 3 various Marl iii models.

 

[Tyke]

@ Wrench75:

The ATF has succesfully prosecuted straw purchases where both the buyer and the receiver were legal and not prohibited persons.

Your interpretation of what constitutes a straw purchase is skewed and you shouldn't be propagating BAD information on here.


*none of what I wrote above has anything to do with MA state law*

Ok, so I decided to do a bit of digging. While you did state it has nothing to do with MA law I started there.

Apparently, purchasing for someone else (who is legally able to take and maintain possession) is legal under Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131E:

Any person who uses said license to carry firearms or firearm identification card for the purpose of purchasing a firearm, rifle or shotgun for the unlawful use of another, or for resale to or giving to an unlicensed person, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years nor more than ten years

Page 165 of the ATF Guidelines "Handbook" or "Giant Freaking Handbook" (atf.gov), paragraph 15 deals with it as quoted here:

Questions have arisen concerning the
lawfulness of firearms purchases from
licensees by persons who use a "straw
purchaser" (another person) to acquire
the firearms. Specifically, the actual
buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute
the Form 4473 purporting to show
that the straw purchaser is the actual
purchaser of the firearm. In some instances,
a straw purchaser is used because
the actual purchaser is prohibited
from acquiring the firearm. That is to
say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is
within one of the other prohibited categories
of persons who may not lawfully
acquire firearms or is a resident of a
State other than that in which the licensee's
business premises is located.
Because of his or her disability, the person
uses a straw purchaser who is not
prohibited from purchasing a firearm
from the licensee. In other instances,
neither the straw purchaser nor the actual
purchaser is prohibited from acquiring
the firearm.
In both instances, the straw purchaser
violates Federal law by making
false statements on Form 4473 to the
licensee with respect to the identity of
the actual purchaser of the firearm, as
well as the actual purchaser's residence
address and date of birth. The actual
purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser
to acquire a firearm has unlawfully
aided and abetted or caused the
making of the false statements. The
licensee selling the firearm under these
circumstances also violates Federal law
if the licensee is aware of the false
statements on the form. It is immaterial
that the actual purchaser and the straw
purchaser are residents of the State in
which the licensee's business premises
is located, are not prohibited from receiving
or possessing firearms, and
could have lawfully purchased firearms
from the licensee. An example of an illegal straw purchase
is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr.
Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr.
Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the
money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills
out Form 4473, he violates the law by
falsely stating that he is the actual buyer
of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates
the law because he has unlawfully aided
and abetted or caused the making of
false statements on the form.
Where a person purchases a firearm
with the intent of making a gift of the
firearm to another person, the person
making the purchase is indeed the true
purchaser. There is no straw purchaser
in these instances. In the above example,
if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm
with his own money to give to Mr. Smith
as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could
lawfully have completed Form 4473.
The use of gift certificates would also
not fall within the category of straw purchases.
The person redeeming the gift
certificate would be the actual purchaser
of the firearm and would be properly
reflected as such in the dealer's records.

There is a lot of contradiction and grey area there -- the ATF guidelines on lawfulness directly contradicts itself on at least 1 occasion. That is not a game of chance I would want to play.

ETA: Emphasis mine. IANAL and this is NOT legal advice. This my own singular, and possibly flawed, interpretation of the laws under discussion at the MA and Fed level.

 

[Quiet]

Did you misunderstand the part about if you resell it it's an illegal straw purchase?

The law makes gifts legal, buying it on behalf of another is not.

You are also misunderstand what they are saying when they say that "in other cases both are legal" They are saying that EVEN THOUGH both are legal a straw purchase is illegal. They keep saying over and over again that it doesn't matter that both are legal or in the same state or whatever, it's still making false statements, so it's still illegal.

I think.

So I wouldn't rely on your interpretation.... But IANAL.

 

[Tyke]

Did you misunderstand the part about if you resell it it's an illegal straw purchase?

On the MA or Fed side? On the MA side it appears to not be an issue so long as both parties are legal to possess. Fed side definitely, it appears, if sold.

You are also misunderstand what they are saying when they say that "in other cases both are legal" They are saying that EVEN THOUGH both are legal a straw purchase is illegal. They keep saying over and over again that it doesn't matter that both are legal or in the same state or whatever, it's still making false statements, so it's still illegal.

Right, I understand that. I highlighted that specifically to demonstrate that even if both people are completely 100% legal to purchase, possess, etc...it's still a crime under Fed law.

So I wouldn't rely on your interpretation.... But IANAL.

Neither would I (and I certainly am not)!

 

[Quiet]

Ahh, gotchya. I thought you were missing that, so I'm the dumbass!

 

[Artie]

As to value,
beat up: $200-250
good to great: $250-300
LNIB: $350+

^This^
They are out there for lower prices, but they move quick. I paid $185 for a "good" condition 1971 Standard w/ 2 mags this last Easter weekend at M&M Plimoth Bay Outfitters and I was nervous that there might be something wrong but in the end it was a great shooter. Had been looking for months and the prices were averaging $300-400 used.

 

[jcr]

The law makes gifts legal, buying it on behalf of another is not.

Warning for stay-at-home wives: Don't buy a gun for your working husband. <g>