I have lost track of the number of times that I've see folks post something to the effect of "it's only a straw purchase if you buy it for a prohibited person." But I note this from the Fourth's decision:
Quote:
|
First, he argues that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because his conduct was beyond the purview of ยงยง 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A), in that both he and his uncle were legally entitled to purchase and own the Glock 19 handgun.
|
The Fourth Circuit doesn't buy that, though.