September 22, 2014, 10:07 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
Straw Purchase?
Giving $money$ upfront to another for the Purchase of a firearm is a Straw Purchase, yes?
Would this not be considered a "Straw" as the money was fronted to NJ for the sole purpose to buy Firearms? http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...l#incart_river There's little harm in the bill our state Assembly just passed, to expand gun buyback programs across New Jersey. It comes at no cost to the taxpayers. It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations. |
September 22, 2014, 10:53 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
Yep you be right. What does NJ have to do with this??????
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
September 22, 2014, 11:02 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
Part of me says let them have their silly buy-back programs. At least as long as it doesn't cost more tax dollars. I have a broken, cheap Spanish-made copy of a S&W breaktop revolver that I'll get something for.
|
September 22, 2014, 11:22 AM | #4 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
For the purposes of federal law, when buying a gun from an FFL, a straw purchase is lying on the 4473 about who the actual transferee is. Things like asking someone to buy a gun for you and giving him or promising him the money are part of determining who, in the contemplation of the law, the actual transferee is. 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 |
||
September 22, 2014, 12:18 PM | #5 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
I would be very leery of someone who wants onerous legislation passed, and who can only offer this as a justification: Quote:
The rest of the article is comprised of statistics without attribution and "research" from Mother Jones, all presented in an attempt to get us to emulate Australia's 1997 agreement. No thanks.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
September 22, 2014, 07:25 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Location: sydney
Posts: 135
|
Oh FFS.
I'm getting really sick of all these articles citing us as the perfect example of gun control. The buybacks did not work. We've had 3 "mass" shootings since then plus weekly drive bys and gang shootings in melbourne and western sydney. We now have MORE guns in private homes than before port arthur and noone else has gone postal. p.s. Martin Bryant stole the guns he used. He was not eligible to own a firearm in the first place. So please stop using us as an example. pps. No one has proposed banning matches and lighters after these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers...sing_home_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downunder_Hostel_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childer...rs_Hostel_fire |
September 23, 2014, 12:09 PM | #7 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, if you do ask the people doing it, they won't listen. I don't doubt you for a minute about what has, and is happening there. Personally, I'm long fed up with those people claiming how I (US) should have the gun control of Britain, Australia, or any other place they pick to hold up as a shining example of their beliefs. I can only imagine how much it must burn the good people who live in those places to be used as examples.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
September 23, 2014, 01:50 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Hey Shooterdownunder can you link a news report to those shootings you mentioned? A lot of folks who point to your neck of the woods almost invariably include something about not having a mass shooting since.
|
September 23, 2014, 11:04 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Location: sydney
Posts: 135
|
Sorry Jim it was my mistake, there have been two mass shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting as mentioned though random shootings are happening every week. 44 AMP. My thoughts may considered unpopular both here at home and on this forum but I believe we should have the gun control laws of new zealand. They require licencing like we do but once you have the licence there is little restriction on what you may own with the exception of explosives and full automatics. Last edited by shooterdownunder; September 23, 2014 at 11:13 PM. |
September 24, 2014, 07:11 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
|
Back to the OP's original question:
Quote:
|
|
September 24, 2014, 10:19 AM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Its a potentially ugly can of worms, and one that in some cases is only decided in court. One way to avoid this issue is simply to buy the firearm yourself, and then give it to whom you wish, as a gift. It is still legal to do that, provided both you and the recipient are both legal to own the firearm.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
September 24, 2014, 10:34 AM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
If the guy putting up the money winds up with the gun (by prior arrangement), he's the actual purchaser. If the guy taking the money and buying the gun is expected to keep the gun, he is the actual purchaser.
__________________
"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 |
|
September 24, 2014, 10:37 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2010
Posts: 176
|
Are firearms transfers in NJ required to go through an FFL? The firearms are not being seized or taken as evidence in a criminal case. Can a city, county or state bypass requirements (assumed) that the transfer be conducted through an FFL?
|
September 24, 2014, 10:51 AM | #14 | |
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 |
|
September 24, 2014, 11:26 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2010
Posts: 176
|
Exercised my google-fu.
Looks like LE is not subject to FID card requirement to take possession. 13:54-1.3 http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf...tle13-ch54.pdf |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|