|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 16, 2013, 06:37 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
|
Then again, much has changed since the founders wrote the Constitution. The Second doesn't have anything to do with straws...
Seriously, it is illegal to murder someone, whether you strangle them with an extension cord, drown them in a toilet, or beat them to death with a shovel. Until a crime has been committed, I say leave the topic of gun purchase alone. If it's all about keeping guns out of the hands of felons, then define straw purchase as such. |
October 16, 2013, 08:18 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
October 16, 2013, 08:47 AM | #28 | |
Member
Join Date: June 3, 2013
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
|
|
October 16, 2013, 09:10 AM | #29 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) November 12, 2009 -- Bank Robbery in Rocky Mount, VA 2) November 15, 2009 -- Alvarez sends Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" in the memo line. 3) November 17, 2009 -- Abramski purchases G19 (and a bunch of other stuff apparently) for cash at an FFL in Collinsville, some 20-25 miles from Rocky Mount. 4) November 20, 2009 -- Abramski deposits check. 5) Nobember 21, 2009 -- Abramski transfers handgun via FFL to Alvarez. If I were an FBI agent looking for a bank robber, I'd be looking for someone with large amounts of cash to throw around. Gun shops seem like a pretty good place to be looking, given that I'd be looking for a bank robber . . . Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||
October 16, 2013, 09:23 AM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 16, 2013, 09:38 AM | #31 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
To me, the "smell test" here is as I described in a previous post. If Abramski could have legally gone through EXACTLY the same steps to buy the gun and GIVE it to Alvarez, what possible difference could (and should) it make that Alvarez reimbursed him for the cost? This is another example of the government working overtime to turn honest citizens into "criminals" over alleged technical violations of laws and regulations that the law enforcement agencies themselves don't even understand. And clearly law enforcement agencies DON'T understand the laws and regulations applicable here, since we have federal circuit courts disagreeing on what the law means. So the answer is not as patently obvious as we might wish for. It's a shame lawmakers long ago stopped writing laws that just said what they meant in plain English. "Don't sell guns to bad guys" (perhaps with a definition of what "bad guy" means in the context of the law) would have been much simpler and easier to understand than all the gobbledigook that makes up the legal landscape underlying this case. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; October 16, 2013 at 09:47 AM. |
||
October 16, 2013, 09:47 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
|
Did I miss somewhere in this discussion how the feds got wind of this in the first place? I get that they have violated a law ... but if no crime was committed with the gun and FFLs handled both the original purchase and the transfer, what red light went off at ATF or the FBI to bring this pretty obviously innocent act to the law's attention?
__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus |
October 16, 2013, 09:54 AM | #33 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Everything had been arranged ahead of time and an agent-principal relationship established. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 16, 2013, 09:54 AM | #34 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Bill, see post #29 by Spats McGee.
|
October 16, 2013, 10:00 AM | #35 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
It's hard to argue that this doesn't run afoul of the ATFs current interpretation of the law but I think it's a good case because there's nothing about it that SHOULD be illegal.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
October 16, 2013, 10:38 AM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
It is clear that the initial purchase was made with his own money. (Purchase = November 17. Check Deposit = November 20.) But it also appears that Alvarez and Abramski had entered into an agreement for Abramski to buy the gun for Alvarez. That's kind of the heart and soul of a straw purchase.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
October 16, 2013, 11:23 AM | #37 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
For instance, I know where there's a '64 1/2 Mustang that I can get for $4000. I know that you want a '64 1/2 Mustang. I tell you I can get you the car for $6000. You agree. I buy the car and sell it to you. The Mustang could be replaced with almost literally ANY object in the known universe and be perfectly legal... except a gun, when it becomes suddenly illegal.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
October 16, 2013, 11:24 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 963
|
Dose what happened break the letter of the law? It sure does, look right here (ink on paper)… Now, what was the spirit of the law?
The law is to stop Prohibited people from obtaining guns..That is the intent, that is so obvious to a rational person. In my eyes, the only reason this was caught was because of the attempt to be above board. I think the ffl. transfer in its self, was the clincher. Again, to me, this is not the intent.. The Agent that pushed this……..Well, who knows what his motives are... |
October 16, 2013, 12:33 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
The problem appears to reside in the timing of the check suggesting/proving an intent or contract. |
|
October 16, 2013, 12:50 PM | #40 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Here's a scenario: I mention that I'm going by a gun shop today on my lunch break. Blanca says, "hey, they've got that Bustamatic 2000 in stock. Here's the money. Can you pick it up for me?" If I do so, I'm breaking the law. It doesn't matter that it's perfectly legal for him to own it. However, let's say I just happen to be in the shop, and I see the BM2000. I think, "hey, Blanca wants one of those. I'll buy it for him." Since I'm buying it as a gift, I'm not breaking the law. Even if he reimburses me for it. Even if I sell it to him at a higher price than I paid. The line is really blurry and arbitrarily drawn. I get why the statute was enacted, but like many gun-control laws, it's a disaster in practice.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 16, 2013, 12:56 PM | #41 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
October 16, 2013, 01:05 PM | #42 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
What's odd is that prosecutors decided to circle the wagons around Abramski and bring out the pitchforks, while those conducting intentional straw buys routinely get off the hook.
I'm familiar with more than a few cases locally. Nobody gets the full sentence, even when the guns are later used in crimes. Most folks plead down to a lesser charge, and I've known defendants to get off with probation. One of the major purchasers in the Fast & Furious operation got 41 months, but a guy with no intention of wrongdoing and no harm done gets the book thrown at him.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
October 16, 2013, 01:26 PM | #43 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. Last edited by motorhead0922; October 16, 2013 at 01:33 PM. Reason: Added quoted material. |
|||
October 16, 2013, 01:30 PM | #44 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Yes, it's silly. We all know that it's silly. The courts, however, are not in the business of determining the wisdom (or silliness) of statutes. They're in the business of determining (in criminal cases) whether the State has carried its burden of proving a violation. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, if Abramski had raised a 2A challenge to the law, then the court could make a determination as to the validity of the law. He does not challenge the constitutionality of the statute, though. I suspect that this may be part of an effort to backpedal from the "we don't have time to prosecute paperwork violations" doctrine. I agree with Tom that it's really strange that they're ready to lynch Abramski, but while known traffickers have been given such light sentences, historically speaking.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
October 16, 2013, 03:58 PM | #45 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
For example, I just got a card in the mail about a gun show coming up in two weeks. It's about 50 miles away, and I may or may not be able to get there. But I'm sure if I ask around at the range I can turn up somebody who will be attending. So I could hand one of these people a wad of cash and they can legally pick up ammo, holsters, scopes, parts, accessories, and gun-related "stuff" up the wazoo for me ... but if they buy a mil-surp CZ-82 or even a non-functional Colt 1860 Army ... now it's a straw purchase? How is that logical, and what purpose does it serve? Especially if my new-found friend spends all my money on the ammo I asked him to buy, then he spots the 1860 Army and buys it anyway since he knows I've been looking for one at the right price. So now HE bought the gun, using his own money. I think we agree that it's 100 percent, squeaky clean legal if he gives it to me because I'm such a great guy, yes? Suppose, though, that he hands it to me (through an FFL transfer, of course) and I pay him for it. Is it a straw sale then? After all, he used HIS money (my money was already spent on ammo). He WAS the actual purchaser -- even though his intention was to transfer it to me as soon as possible. Then we ratchet things up another notch: He spent all my money on ammo, but we live in an era of cell phones. He spies the 1860 Colt so he calls me from the show: "Hey, I just spotted a cheap 1860 Colt, just like you've been talking about. The price is right. Shall I grab it for you?" What then if I say, "Yeah, grab it"? He's STILL using his money, but now he already knows he will be completely reimbursed. It seems to me that this entire case hinges not on the transfer but on the answer he gave to one question on the 4473, and I just don't see that he lied on the form. ESPECIALLY not when he had asked not one but THREE FFLs and they ALL told him what he wanted to do was legal. Words are supposed to have meaning, and "lie" does not means the same thing as "make a factual mistake." Heck, I know for a fact that I once made an incorrect statement under oath in a deposition. I didn't lie -- I was wrong in my recollection of an event that had taken place two years previous, and I wasn't aware that my statement was incorrect until six months after the deposition. Did I perjure myself? No, not in my eyes, and not in the eyes of the law. I told the truth as I understood it to be at the moment. Why should it be any different when you're checking a box on a piece of paper? Last edited by Aguila Blanca; October 16, 2013 at 08:29 PM. |
|
October 16, 2013, 04:49 PM | #46 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
October 16, 2013, 05:20 PM | #47 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's just a thought, but it isn't too far out there. Maybe they just want to get there hands on this guy so he can't disappear on them while they pull together proof of his involvement in the bank robbery. Abramski is already a suspect isn't he? On a side note, back to the check and the money. Businesses don't consider a check as payment until it clears the bank, it's a promise of payment, but it isn't payment as far as I can see, not the way mine are treated anyway. And second, Father and Son. I can't say how many times things have come up between my Father and I where one has promised to pay the other, and sometimes it goes that way and sometimes it doesn't. We have this routine where we both insist on paying but neither of us can predict exactly how it will actually turn out. It's almost like a protracted game of "Who's got the check?" at the restaurant. I'm just saying, things just are not black and white between a Father and Son.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 Last edited by lcpiper; October 16, 2013 at 05:45 PM. |
||||
October 16, 2013, 05:20 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 963
|
Brian, Talk Frustrating! Watch a group of Thugs dressed in red choreograph and direct from 20-30 feet away . The females look back running their fingers down the glass tables until they see the thugs nod their heads…. Well of course she buying it for herself.
|
October 16, 2013, 06:55 PM | #49 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Problem is the law is casting a wide net posibly and probably catching the wrong fish then throwing them in with the lot. Not to mention the posibility of being prosecuted by a bunch of antis who hate me and have pity for a real criminal. My beef is with the obvious holes n the law and not with whether or not Abramski was guilty of another crime and they got him on a different one like they did Mr. Capone
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario! |
|||
October 16, 2013, 08:04 PM | #50 |
Member
Join Date: June 3, 2013
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 98
|
Thanks Spats, I never fully understood how they determined it, except the obvious, so I was a little confused...
|
|
|