Straw Purchaser-woman buys 47 handguns in May

[DaleA]

The title pretty much says it, a Minnesota woman with no criminal record was buying guns and then selling them at a $100 profit per gun on the black market. She did 47 guns in May, 2021.

Various things got her caught.
1. A gun store thought she was suspicious and notified authorities.
2. A gun retrieved from a suspect in a shooting was found to have been purchased by the woman just 15 days earlier.

So, what to do?
I'm not in favor a registery. Canada made a big effort to try that and it didn't work and I have other objections to it too.

Limit the number of guns you can buy in a month? As soon as that happens i will come upon an estate sale where someone is selling a collection of pristine S&W N frames in various calibers and barrel lengths and Colt Pythons in various barrel lengths from the 1950's and 1960's for $200 each.

"For every complex problem, there's a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." H.L. Mencken

https://www.startribune.com/she-boug.../?refresh=true

[FITASC]

Was she buying them all from the same store? How was her background checks handled? Why did the NICS not raise a red flag?

[zukiphile]

So, what to do?

Do we need to do anything other than apply the existing sanction for functioning as an unlicensed dealer?

Limit the number of guns you can buy in a month?

Zero is a number, and as soon as you concede the principle of the state telling how much you can have, you've also conceded that they can tell you to have none.

[DaleA]

Apologies FITASC!
I forgot to include the link to the article. I've went back and edited post #1 to include the link but the link was NOT there when FITASC made their post.

She bought the guns at various gun stores. She has no criminal background but the article said she was living out of her car during the month...that would cause problems listing an address but it's not clear to me if they verify an address on a background check. Likewise, I don't know if the NICS raises a flag for multiple purchases.

[FITASC]

Funny how that articles doesn't lay any blame on the criminals or DAs who let the rioters and thugs run amok causing the spike in crime.

[MC 1911]

You do nothing to every other gunowner and use the full extent of the law on her. Enforce the laws we have we don't need anymore. I also don't think she was a straw purchaser in the legal sense.

[Tom Servo]

A gun store thought she was suspicious and notified authorities.

This is SUPPOSED to be the solution. When I ran a shop, I reported blatant attempted straw purchases to the authorities several times.

Wait, no. Let's back up. I TRIED to report them to the authorities. When I called the ATF field office, I was told it was a matter to be handled by the local sheriff's department. When I called the sheriff's department, I was told it was an issue for the ATF. It was frustrating.

So, I'd dump the camera footage to a thumb drive, copy the signed 4473, and I'd write up a log with the names and numbers of people I'd called. It went into the Blue File. Over the years, the Blue File accrued quite a few entries.

In at least one case, another dealer had to testify in court when a gun they sold was tied to a shooting. Had I heard of the perpetrator? Sure enough, there he was in the Blue File. He and his girlfriend had been turned away by us a few days prior to that.

Dealers develop an eye for this stuff. We report it. Problem is, the people tasked with doing something about it just don't feel like doing their jobs.

As with most aspects of this situation, it's a lack of follow-up and enforcement that are the problems.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

As with most aspects of this situation, it's a lack of follow-up and enforcement that are the problems.

Then-VP Joseph Biden: "We don't have time for that."

As a matter of social policy, if the government doesn't have the time to enforce a law -- why is it a law?

A couple or three decades ago, the local police arrested a woman in a sting operation. The charge (which was bogus, IMHO) was related to "fortune telling." When the case went to court, it was summarily dismissed when the defense attorney pointed out to the judge that neither the arresting officers not the prosecutor even understood what the law said.

That's not the good part. In the aftermath of this, the legislature discovered that this law had been on the books for EIGHTY YEARS. In all that time, this case was the only case to have ever been tried under the law -- and the case was tossed because the aw-thaw-rih-tays couldn't even understand what the law said.

The legislature thereupon repealed the law. Which is what should happen to thousands of obscure, unenforceable laws all over the country.

[Nathan]

You see, the solution exists, but is not used. Why can’t the people you report these issues to, that don’t respond, be terminated? Or the people setting direction not to enforce?

That said, replace the word gun with shovel, axe, car, hatchet, poison, and she is just running a legit side hustle….you can be killed with all those..

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by DaleA

The title pretty much says it, a Minnesota woman with no criminal record was buying guns and then selling them at a $100 profit per gun on the black market. She did 47 guns in May, 2021.

Various things got her caught.
1. A gun store thought she was suspicious and notified authorities.
2. A gun retrieved from a suspect in a shooting was found to have been purchased by the woman just 15 days earlier.

So, what to do?
I'm not in favor a registery. Canada made a big effort to try that and it didn't work and I have other objections to it too.

Limit the number of guns you can buy in a month? As soon as that happens i will come upon an estate sale where someone is selling a collection of pristine S&W N frames in various calibers and barrel lengths and Colt Pythons in various barrel lengths from the 1950's and 1960's for $200 each.

"For every complex problem, there's a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." H.L. Mencken

https://www.startribune.com/she-boug.../?refresh=true

How about throwing the woman in jail for running a business without a license, an FFL, and not charging sales tax?

[44 AMP]

The problem was not how many guns she bought, but that she bought them for resale, and sold them without possessing the Federal license to deal in firearms, which has been a Federal crime for a long, long time.

When Biden was VP, he said, on camera (and I saw it) that the reason the Fed prosecuted so few people for breaking the law trying to buy a firearm was "We don't have time for that..."

Now that he's the Pres, what does he have time for?? Remember for both good and bad, the guidance for our fed agencies comes from the top, down.

When its clear the brass doesn't care, the field guys are not going to care much, either. A few will, and will do the right thing, as best they can, but when the rest of the system is apathetic, they can't accomplish much by themselves.

[ballardw]

Isn't that "engaging in the business" and not a "strawman" sale? I though strawman you knew who you were buying for, even if not a prohibited person, and not a "legitimate gift" or what ever the wording was.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ballardw

Isn't that "engaging in the business" and not a "strawman" sale? I though strawman you knew who you were buying for, even if not a prohibited person, and not a "legitimate gift" or what ever the wording was.

Could be both. 47 guns in a month is more than one a day -- if the gun stores in her area are closed one day a week (most are around here), that leaves maybe 26 business days in the month, so that's an average of 1.8 guns per day.

She might have been buying that many guns with her own money, on speculation ... but IMHO Occam's razor suggests that she was, in fact, acting as a buyer's agent for at least some of those transactions, and not using her own money. That would be straw purchases.

And the article makes it clear that that's what was happening:

In an interview with the ATF, Elwood said she'd been buying guns almost daily for the past month or two and selling them, usually for $100 profit per gun, according to court documents. She and Jackson needed the money since she lost her job in March 2020, lost her apartment and her mother was diagnosed with cancer, she told investigators, the court records said.

Jackson is prohibited from buying guns in Minnesota, so he'd arrange the deals, get money up front and Elwood would make the purchase, she said, according to court documents. The ATF has traced 56 guns straw-purchased by Elwood since last August, according to court documents.

She and Jackson sold most of them to Geryiell Lamont Walker, a person she knew as "Man-Man." Elwood said she knew Walker was reselling the guns, but she didn't know to whom.

(Jackson is her fiance -- and a prohibited person.)

[USAFNoDak]

zukiphile wrote:

Zero is a number, and as soon as you concede the principle of the state telling how much you can have, you've also conceded that they can tell you to have none.

Since they'll have to track you for the number of guns you're buying, they'll know how many you have. Then they can put in place a limit of some arbitrary number which they feel is "safe" for a civilian to own. Once you reach that number you are cut off. Technically, they haven't prevented you from "keeping and bearing arms". They've only set a "public safety" limit as to how many arms you can own. We dare not give the government power which they will undoubtedly abuse at some point. Thus, limiting how many firearms we can buy in one month, one year, one lifetime, etc., is not a good idea.

[USAFNoDak]

She and Jackson sold most of them to Geryiell Lamont Walker, a person she knew as "Man-Man." Elwood said she knew Walker was reselling the guns, but she didn't know to whom.

I hope the authorities also go after Jackson and Lamont Walker and throw the book at them as well. We could stop a lot of criminal activities if we decide to enforce the laws we already have and strictly enforce them with max jail/prison time for violations. In this case, the woman should be gone for 10 years, Jackson and Lamont Walker for 20. No telling how many crimes were committed by thugs using the guns they sold to them.

[Tom Servo]

Jackson is prohibited from buying guns in Minnesota, so he'd arrange the deals, get money up front and Elwood would make the purchase

The bolded part makes it a textbook straw purchase. Using someone else's money to make the purchase is what the ATF looks for.

a person she knew as "Man-Man."

That has to be the lamest super-hero name ever.

[raimius]

What we should do is prosecute them for violating multiple laws...in other words, we already have the solution. No new, radical ideas or laws needed.

[44 AMP]

The trick is getting an administration that "has time for that".

[doofus47]

I think once you get to 40+, that's a full bale...

[eflyguy]

All I'll say is it makes me wonder what the heck the form I have complete with every purchase is used for.

[44 AMP]

All I'll say is it makes me wonder what the heck the form I have complete with every purchase is used for.

the famous "4473"?? its stored by the shop, so as to be available for after the crime is committed investigation by the ATF.

OF course, this only works after a crime has happened and the authorities HAVE THE GUN to trace. Otherwise, it is useless and just takes up space in a filing cabinet.

[DaleA]

Of course, this only works after a crime has happened and the authorities HAVE THE GUN to trace.

This reminded me of a comedian a long time back that commented on the gun/car argument and that very few people involved in a robbery or hold up or assault get the serial number of the gun used.

His solution was to put a full sized automobile license plate on every gun. He pulled out a long barreled, single action revolver (maybe it was some kind of Buntline Special) that had a license plate hanging off the barrel and it was pretty funny.

[Aguila Blanca]

Did the license plate have the serial number on one side and "BANG!" on the other side?

[Metal god]

I don't understand the original point or question . Isn't what she was doing illegal ? Why is there something else that needs to be done about it ? Now "we" are acting like the anti's , just pass more laws , that will stop it

Laws are not and never have been something that prevents anything . A law is to allow the government to punish you for something they or society as a whole has deemed they'd rather you did not do . Some words on a piece of paper saying don't do that has ZERO ability to stop anything from happening . It's the law abiding citizen reading that paper and agreeing to comply that makes it "seem" like laws prevent things but they do not prevent anything because the individual always gets to make a choice to comply or not in the end .

[44 AMP]

I don't understand the original point or question . Isn't what she was doing illegal ? Why is there something else that needs to be done about it ? Now "we" are acting like the anti's , just pass more laws , that will stop it

The OP gives the case, and then asks "what to do?"

He then mentions a registry and a "one gun a month" limit and why he's not in favor of either.

I'm not in favor of either, either, but neither is something to be considered as "something to do" about this case.

The only thing "to do" is see that this woman, and everyone else involved is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

There is no need, and no reason to do anything else.

This is NOT a case of "tragedy would have been prevented by one more law..." if indeed there ever is actually such a thing...

It was brought up how laws don't actually prevent anything, and that is partially true. They do, and they don't.

No words on paper ever actually prevent anything. Only people choosing to obey them due to a certainty of punishment does. And that, is an unquantifiable thing. No one can give you any numbers on how many crimes were never committed.

Remove the general certainty of punishment (or even getting caught) and people don't fear the consequences of breaking the law. Big laws or little ones, the principle applies.