ABC report

The reporters on these exposes do this kind of stuff all the time, and none of them ever seem to come to grief over it.
So, is what they are doing, buying guns with someone else's money, and then turning them over to their employers, a crime worthy of prosecution?
And if they are, why is no-one being charged?
 
If they're doing stories where "criminal activity" plays a role. IMO it should be a crime worthy of prosecution. Why should a journalist be above the law?
 
CTG
In the ABC piece I did not see any criminal activity.
The scenario was set up to look furtive and clandestine but, in fact, I saw nothing illegal.
The reporters did not do an ethical journalistic job of explaining the guns were perfectly legal to own and sell privately. As a former newsman, and an ethical one, I am very disturbed by that.
In fact, if I lived in a large city I think I would want to meet a potential gun buyer in a neutral location and not reveal where I lived.
They did a good job of creating fear and misrepresenting gun owners.
 
If the guy buying the guns in the parking lot is using funds provided by someone else, then it's a classic straw purchase.
Click to expand...

Nope. Even if we ignore the first amendment angle this isn't a straw purchase.

The buyer is acting as an agent of a corporation. If a company were to buy firearms for their security force, it wouldn't be the CEO that made the purchase.

Straw purchases also don't come into play when guying from a private individual.
 
The network needs only to give her the money as a bonus, contractor or additional payroll check, with zero reference to "guns".
She can purchase a gun with the money, so long as she keeps it.

In other words, if the money given is subject to income taxes... its hers to buy whatever she wants.
 
Rifleman

I did not say criminal activity happened in the video, assuming the transactions weren't straw purchases that is. What I was referring to was the story itself being about how easy it was for "criminals" to purchase firearms. Thus the story is about criminal activity by default.

I guess for me its a matter of not understanding why so many on here want to defend her actions. She may or may not have intended to purchase the rifles with her own money, but if I were a betting man, I'd take the odds that this was not the case. I would also bet that some producer thought up this piece and it was funded by the production company.
 
She's not the actual buyer of the firearm if she's been fronted the money by someone else.
Click to expand...

Unless you can cite specific law that says you can't be given money to buy a gun for yourself, then I can't see where you argument is valid. Straw purchases have nothing to do with money origin, but do have to do with who ends up with the gun...at least I can't find any law that supports your assertion to the contrary.
 
I am not sure about individual state laws, but I am pretty sure that a straw purchase is legal anyways as long as the intended recipient has no intentions of using the firearm for a crime, if the recipient can legally possess a firearm, and finally if the purchaser states that the firearm is a gift for someone who they must identify. (The gift part only applies to buying a firearm at a licensed firearms dealer)

Actually, heres something from Wikipedia that backs what I said:

Straw purchases can be illegal in the United States when made at a federally licensed firearm dealership. If the straw purchaser of the firearm lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun, he can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. If a firearm is purchased as a gift, the transaction is not a straw purchase, and the person buying the gift is considered the end user. Straw purchases made outside of federally regulated dealerships are not illegal unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser. [1]
Click to expand...
 
Unless you can cite specific law that says you can't be given money to buy a gun for yourself, then I can't see where you argument is valid.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the misconception. There was another thread involving a "sting" at a gun shop, and I got them mixed up. Also, a distracting shiny object may have been involved.

To clarify, Von Zeller's actions do not constitute a straw purchase, as she did not purchase the guns from a licensed dealer.

I wonder, though...what happens to those guns when the story is done?
 
SC4006 said:
I am not sure about individual state laws, but I am pretty sure that a straw purchase is legal anyways as long as the intended recipient has no intentions of using the firearm for a crime, if the recipient can legally possess a firearm, and finally if the purchaser states that the firearm is a gift for someone who they must identify. (The gift part only applies to buying a firearm at a licensed firearms dealer)
Click to expand...
No. Straw purchases of firearms are illegal.

In terms of federal firearms law, a straw purchase is when a person who is purchasing a firearm from an FFL lies on the 4473. Specifically, question 11a (I think it is) asks, "Are you the actual purchaser of the firearm? __Yes ___ No" If the person filling out the form is NOT the actual purchaser, but states that he is, then it's a straw purchase. Whether it is a straw purchase has nothing to do with whether the intended recipient is prohibited, or if he intends to use the firearm in a crime (though other criminal charges may be implicated if he does). As far as the firearm being a gift, I can't find anywhere on the 4473 where the intended recipient of the gift would even be identified.
 
Sanity Challenged said:
I personally do find it a somewhat concerning that a normally prohibited person could use a private sale to get around this prohibition,
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you support closing the so-called gunshow loophole? Did you help NG with the story or are you just promoting their view?
 
Spats McGee said:
No. Straw purchases of firearms are illegal.

In terms of federal firearms law, a straw purchase is when a person who is purchasing a firearm from an FFL lies on the 4473. Specifically, question 11a (I think it is) asks, "Are you the actual purchaser of the firearm? __Yes ___ No" If the person filling out the form is NOT the actual purchaser, but states that he is, then it's a straw purchase. Whether it is a straw purchase has nothing to do with whether the intended recipient is prohibited, or if he intends to use the firearm in a crime (though other criminal charges may be implicated if he does). As far as the firearm being a gift, I can't find anywhere on the 4473 where the intended recipient of the gift would even be identified.
Click to expand...

Who provided the money? That's question 1.
 
Few of here are lawyers.
I believe the words "actual purchaser" is open to interpretation.
At the simplest, an actual purchaser would be the person who lays down the money and takes home the item purchased.
 
I've purchased handguns for my friends paid out of my own pocket as gifts. If that makes me a "straw purchaser," - Хорошо, извините меня!
 
In other words, if the money given is subject to income taxes... its hers to buy whatever she wants.
Click to expand...

I would guess they consulted or had knowledge of the law before they made the propaganda.

Several have done similar reports like....
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/buying-guns-no-questions-asked/
And ....
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33211530/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/undercover-stings-expose-gun-show-loophole/

I am sure there is more to a straw buy from the legal aspect but here is what I understand a straw buy is: When someone purchases a gun for someone who can't purchase one legally themselves.

Still the cause behind such reports are only one sided and never give opposition....or at least from someone who doesn't sound like an idiot and thereby supporting the main cause for the report.

I think the one thing against these reports is that people STILL FEEL you can buy whatever you want on the streets where they believe the majority of illegal and stolen guns are purchased to begin with.

The reason why they don't do reports like that? In the city or on he streets? Or why they don't do studies on it?

Easy answer for me...:mad:
 
From the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide [pdf]:

It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.

Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form 4473. [p. 166]
Click to expand...

"Actual purchaser" is the person whose money is being used.
 
So, in context of this thread, it sounds very much like the lady in the AND story was a straw purchaser.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The straw purchase law only covers transactions with a licensed dealer.

That's why Robyn Anderson never went to jail for buying guns used in the Columbine shooting.
 
"Actual purchaser" is the person whose money is being used.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the reference guide example you cite actually says this. Also, the hypothetical example does not say monies other than monies [earned??] can't be used.

I still don't see any BATF decisions, court cases, or laws that state that money cannot be given, transferred, or otherwise gifted to a person to buy a gun for themselves.

From 4473...

You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.
Click to expand...

So according to 4473, you are the actual buyer if you are the one filling out the form and the gun is for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top