Firearms dealer goes to jail, straw purchaser goes free

[NJgunowner]

You're really arguing a losing battle here N7. Anyone with a shred of common sense would have denied the sell. It was an obvious straw purchase and GREED prompted the sell. They are going after this guy the same as they'd rather arrest a drug dealer instead of a user. They are making him an example to warn others to USE THEIR HEADS!

[johnbt]

"So isn't the gun show at some fault here?
If their rules are that you need a FFL to sell guns, then WHY did this non-FFL have a table(setup) to sell at this gun show.

Why did they allow him there w/o a license? "

_________________

Some shows have stations set up, or arrangements made for someone with an FFL to be available, to run the background checks for the non-FFL sellers. I've seen them, I just haven't used one or paid attention to the details of the arrangements.

John

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Two stupid things don't make one of them right.

Yep, the show manager should pick up that someone who repeatedly has a table for his 'collection' is funny business.

That's how shows get closed as attractive nuisances.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Yep, the show manager should pick up that someone who repeatedly has a table for his 'collection' is funny business.

That's how shows get closed as attractive nuisances.

Penny-wise and pound-foolish. The gun show promoter's greed in collecting the table fees from Copeland led to the show being kicked out of it's usual venue. Let's hope that it serves as a lesson to other gun show promoters who sell tables to serial "private collectors."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So isn't the gun show at some fault here?
If their rules are that you need a FFL to sell guns, then WHY did this non-FFL have a table(setup) to sell at this gun show.

Why did they allow him there w/o a license?

As it was explained earlier, some gun shows use a central table for non-FFLs. However, in this case, the gun show promoter himself didn't know he was going to require all sales through FFLs until the Thursday before the show and he didn't notify his customers until they started showing up.

You can read more about that mess in these two posts:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=400762
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394104

Penny-wise and pound-foolish. The gun show promoter's greed in collecting the table fees from Copeland led to the show being kicked out of it's usual venue.

As discussed in the above links, this happened at the now infamous Boedeker gun show. The previous tenant had been the Saxet Gun Show (who was also the tenant when ATF got interested in the place to begin with), so Boedeker had been there only 4 months when this happened and may not have been aware of Mr. Copeland's history.

[jimpeel]

If the jury learns that Mr. Copeland was required by the rules of the gunshow to make his sale through an FFL; but that he violated that rule, they might infer that Mr. Copeland knew he was making an illegal sale.

The law is not based upon inference. The law is based on the deed and the intent through means, motive, and opportunity.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The law is not based upon inference. The law is based on the deed and the intent through means, motive, and opportunity.

Exactly how do you establish intent if not by inference? Mind-reading helmet? Only convict where the defendant clearly states that it was his intent to do the illegal act?

From his deeds, the jury may infer that Mr. Copeland acted knowingly (<- intent). To put it another way, Mr. Copeland's deed of avoiding the show's rule that all sales go through an FFL, may cause some jurors to determine that his motive/intent was to complete the illegal sale and not do anything that would have sidetracked it.

I don't understand what your point was is attempting to make the distinction you stated.

[jimpeel]

Exactly how do you establish intent if not by inference?

A matter of usage, unfortunately.

Infer is used in various contexts and my context is this:

in·fer
   /ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.

While you apparently were using it as such:

in·fer
   /ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.

I simply don't think a jury should be guessing at the intent of the accused without hard evidence to back it up. I don't believe that the rule the gun show imposed does that. The sale was legal to do regardless of the gun show rule. What made it illegal was the immigration status of the person who instigated the sale and who now walks free.

If they are going to go after the seller they should ALSO go after the straw purchaser. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of the law. All parties to the crime should be prosecuted, not those who are merely selected for prosecution.

Perhaps once it happens to you or someone you know you will agree with the preceding paragraph.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The sale was legal to do regardless of the gun show rule.

If Mr. Copeland was a private seller selling out of his own collection it was legal. If he was engaged in the business of selling firearms without a license, then it was not legal.

However, my main point was that violating the gun show rule didn't help his case at all.

All parties to the crime should be prosecuted, not those who are merely selected for prosecution.

Realistically, prosecutors have to make deals with criminals in order to secure convictions some times. That is an aspect that has been a part of pretty much every legal system men have developed.

I am curious why Mr. Huerta wasn't prosecuted in this case. It doesn't appear his testimony was necessary to this case since an undercover ATF agent witnessed the whole transaction and he gave his testimony to ATF agents voluntarily before any indictment or arrest was made. On the flip side though, I would prefer prosecutors exercise their discretion and pursue violent criminals rather than ruthlessly prosecute every person who runs afoul of our plethora of laws. Not knowing the facts that led to the decision, I can't really give an informed opinion of whether I'd have agreed with the prosecutor's decision here.

[EricReynolds]

I wasn't following at first, but I think I got the gist of the scenario now. It's crazy though when you think of how many straw purchases take place in which it's impossible for a dealer to have a suspicion the purchaser intends to buy the weapon for someone else. What if the actual buyer never enters the shop and sends in a buddy to make the purchase for him? Who's at fault there? The purchaser obviously, as the dealer would have no reasonable way of knowing. It's this way that most illegal guns make it on to the street, not from burglaries. This is the only real argument in favor of registration. I don't want to open that can of worms and talk about why it's wrong, I just want to show why it would work as far as straw purchases go. In NY, where you need a permit and they do register guns, if you make a straw purchase for someone who does not have a permit, and that person is caught with that gun, it will trace back to the permit holder. A cousin in GA could easily buy a gun for someone to bring back to NY. Back to the scenario in this thread, even i the dealer knew what was up, (which is stupid) I think the purchaser is at least equally guilty. The dealer could always plead ignorance that he really didn't understand what was going on, but the purchaser can't. The whole thing is ridiculous.

[divil]

What made it illegal was the immigration status of the person who instigated the sale and who now walks free.

Not true. It's a subtle but important point that keeps getting overlooked: it is the alleged knowledge of the seller, or the fact that he had sufficient reason to believe that the alien was illegal, that makes the sale illegal (for the seller).

I keep seeing the question of whether the seller "knew it was an illegal sale" - the fact is that it's only an illegal act for him if he knows or has reasonable cause to believe (whatever that means) that the recipient is disqualified. If he is justifiably ignorant of the immigration status of the recipient then he is innocent on that particular count. It is irrelevant whether or not he knew or suspected that the gun might be transferred to someone else.