So from what I read it was a glock 27 and a glock 30s. When I first heard about it I thought, yup he pissed someone off. Then "straw purchase" came up so I figured they were leaving details out. I talked a lot about this to my lgs because I am very good friends with them. I guess ultimately the straw purchase came in because of the text messages. What I pointed out to my shop guys was that Glock used to have you fill out a form from them and in it contained wording that it "was not being purchased for the purposes or resale." Looks like this was a key factor. There seems to still be a lot to the story being left out, but either way he is screwed. Also, "official duty use" or whatever verbiage they use does include off duty.
-
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***
Wow they actually popped a LEO for flipping Glocks
- Thread starter rocket500
- Start date
Well, those, and likely money flow. And possibly one or more people ran their mouth a bit much which basically just tees the ball up for the ATF and the US attorney.
That form likely has nothing to do with it, although glock might be able to sue him because he violated their "contract" of the program, but I doubt they care that much esp if the guy is getting whacked.
-Mike
I've seen copies of the Glock form, but that is a contract, not a law so therefore it is a civil matter. The Feds on the other hand will fry people who they can prove bought it with the INTENT to resell to another person and that is a felony.
There should be a distinction between acting as an agent to buy a gun and then sell it to a person who asked you to purchase it for them because they are prohibited from possessing same.
And being able to buy pistols and and later sell them off for a few bucks to a random licensed citizen.
that is utter b.s.
And being able to buy pistols and and later sell them off for a few bucks to a random licensed citizen.
that is utter b.s.
You're right, there should be a difference. But because of Abramski, there isn't.
richc
NES Member
This guy got nailed essentially for "lying under oath" or making a statement "under the penalties of perjury".
It's the same thing that's going on in our government. Trump's lawyer Cohen, lying to Congress. Paul Manafort for lying to the FBI. So many more under investigation for the same thing.
Yet every freaking day I watch members of congress lying through their teeth to the American public.
Something wrong with this dichotomy...
It's the same thing that's going on in our government. Trump's lawyer Cohen, lying to Congress. Paul Manafort for lying to the FBI. So many more under investigation for the same thing.
Yet every freaking day I watch members of congress lying through their teeth to the American public.
Something wrong with this dichotomy...
My guess is it went like this,
Monday morning ex-cop buys glock 19 gen 5 and 19x gen 5
Monday afternoon cop sells glocks to two buddies for nice profit
Monday evening jackass friend is flashing new gun around in public and cops are called to the scene where they wonder how a mere mortal civilian has a brand new gen 5 glock??? insert Feds saying hello here.
or this guy knows something the feds want and the only thing they can find is an old ftf sale of his 2 duty guns to friends and will use this to get info they want.
Monday morning ex-cop buys glock 19 gen 5 and 19x gen 5
Monday afternoon cop sells glocks to two buddies for nice profit
Monday evening jackass friend is flashing new gun around in public and cops are called to the scene where they wonder how a mere mortal civilian has a brand new gen 5 glock??? insert Feds saying hello here.
or this guy knows something the feds want and the only thing they can find is an old ftf sale of his 2 duty guns to friends and will use this to get info they want.
I've bought a couple of Glocks over the years and flipped them shortly after because I didn't like them. The ergonomics on them are awful...
Wow, I haven’t heard of that case.
But what a load of twisted horsepucks. (Is that a legal term? Maybe the Latin equis stircus accidit has more weight)
The Brady bunch actually used a partial example of straw purchase, for their amicus curiae , the fast and furious debacle ,conveniently leaving out it was the .gov who were the straw purchasers.
Ass clowns. Dangerous assclowns.
At least Anton Scalia had the stones to dissent.
Who makes the laws? . . . Congress!
Who makes sure that they are EXEMPT from the laws they make? . . . Congress (to wit - Obamacare)
Thus, they allow themselves to lie with impunity!
I suggest doing some reading of the Abramski case, etc. PROFIT is irrelevant to the Feds position on straw purchases, just like the "prohibited person" part of that law. Two people both with no criminal history agree to have one purchase a gun for another and both go to jail!
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
The sad thing about Abramski is it is barely even a gun case, and that even the libtard side of the court couldn't see that this was more about trying to clean up a bad law vs a "gun case".
