Firearms dealer goes to jail, straw purchaser goes free

J

jimpeel

New member
I searched for the name "Copeland" in all forums so this should not be a repeat thread.

It seems that the government is more interested in going after citizens of this country for selling a firearm than they are for going after an illegal alien for purchasing a firearm.

This is a sad state of affairs and threatens every dealer out there.

SOURCE

Gun rights advocates are up in arms that a Texas gun dealer was sentenced to six months in prison for selling a firearm to an illegal immigrant, but a "middle-man" who bought the gun for the immigrant -- and who was in the U.S. illegally himself, but had a valid driver's license -- was never arrested, charged or deported in the case.

<MORE>
Click to expand...
 
Not being familiar with the real facts (only a newspaper report), I fail to understand why folks are up in arms about this.

Class, can we answer the question of why the straw purchaser went free? Are we familiar with how the CJS works?

WildmoremanufacturedoutragebasedonignoranceAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
I see why.

The dealer did what they were required to do. They did the paperwork. Dude has a legit license and that makes it harder.

In my state you are required by law to present a Birth Certificate, naturalization papers (forgot the actual name of the document, doesn't concern me), so on and so forth.

I don't mind, cuts down on this kind of crap.

The middle man is the one who should be locked up. He bought a firearm on false pretenses and should be arrested tried and convicted, not the dealer. Chances are the dealer did what was required.
 
way that I see it: the Middle Man probably cut a deal with a member of the police force/ATF/court system who doesn't like guns. So, an illegal immigrant who knowingly broke the law got off scott-free for selling out a hard working citizen because of someone's stigma towards guns.
 
I read the story, I read the court document and the ATF Report.

He was not a FFL Holder

I feel outraged that there are people out there like this passing themselves off as responsible gun owners and wanting me to be outraged because he was responsible for the acts that led to his conviction.

Am I surprised that the guy in the middle off this got off. Not at all he was probably cut a deal by the ATF to be a witness.

Whatever just happened to reporting the facts in a story instead of trying to manufacture false outrage?
 
Last edited:
I believe anyone, and I mean anyone, that doesn't follow the law in their state when transferring firearms, is an idiot period, and should pay the price! All the people that are involved in any illegal sale or purchase that knowingly participated should be prosecuted.

Flame On!
 
As it turns out the guy was not a "dealer" but a hobbyist who sells firearms.

If the police who were following the illegals around are not allowed by law to "profile" these people, how is it expected that a common citizen should do so? The person had a valid ID issued by the state, which apparently did not ask about, nor care about, his immigration status. There is a good (actually bad) reason for this. They are not allowed, by law, to ask about his immigration status.

That person then took that valid ID and subsequently used it to commit a crime.

How is the common citizen expected to act in such a situation? The ID is valid, so are they expected to refuse the sale based upon a biased "profile" of the buyer? We all know that the racist accusations would be flying in such a case.

Copeland was apparently expected to believe that these guys were illegals based upon the fact that they were Hispanic, spoke Spanish, and wore cowboy clothing. Profiling anyone?
 
When I first read the 'spin' on this I was up in arms too..

then someone posted a link to the Texas State Rifle Associations take on it:

https://www.tsra.com/index.php?opti...gun-show-chaos&catid=55:tripp-talk&Itemid=113

Maybe I'm being one sided... but when the Texas State Rifle Association says the guy was an idiot.... (well, not in those words...but you can get the drift in the article)

Seems that the guy along with everyone else at the gun show was forewarned by the ATF (for right or wrong).... then this guy Copeland sold a gun in a transaction that the very dimmest of us would have known was suspect....

If I say I'm going to hit you in the head with a hammer and I go and get a hammer and I swing it over my head and start to bring it down.... don't then tell me you had no idea what I was about to do.....
 
Good catch, Blume.

My opinion on this hasn't changed. From the first, I thought this guy was a idjut. The TSRA article only confirms it.

Yes, I think it is a shame that the buyers are seldom, if ever, prosecuted (along with the seller), but that is the way it is and most of us know it.

Jimpeel, it's apparent that Copeland knew a straw purchase was going down. If he had any inkling of the laws (which from the TSRA article, he did), he also knew that he was committing a felony. I have no sympathy for him. The law is, what it is. We obey the law, even while working to change it.

Mr. Copeland it appears, would rather scream that it's his bloody constitutional right, while being dragged off to jail. Rather than working with others for change, and doing things in a manner that helps all gun owners, Copeland shows us the lone-wolf strategy. Never worked before, doesn't work now.
 
blume357 said:
Maybe I'm being one sided... but when the Texas State Rifle Association says the guy was an idiot....
Click to expand...

and

Al Norris said:
My opinion on this hasn't changed. From the first, I thought this guy was a idjut. The TSRA article only confirms it.

...

Jimpeel, it's apparent that Copeland knew a straw purchase was going down.
Click to expand...

You both seem to hold great stock in the TSRA article linked by blume357 yet the article clearly states:

In conclusion:

The BATF is a federal agency and as such mirrors the trends and philosophies of the administration in power. This is a "given". However, there is nothing new about chasing down a dealer and allowing the person with the "criminal intent" to go free when it comes to a straw-purchase. Think about the young lady who purchased the guns for the Columbine shooters. She and most straw-purchasers are never prosecuted even when their illegal actions cost the lives of innocent victims.

No one believes that Mr. Copeland intended to commit a criminal act, just the opposite as he asked for proof of citizenship. Yet, everyone knows all three of the young hispanics knew they were committing a crime. As long as the prosecution for a straw purchase does not focus on the criminal-purchaser, all dealers are at risk including gun stores, a pawn shops, any FFL, much less a private dealer.
Click to expand...

That sounds very much like what I stated in the thread header. How either of you could come to the conclusion that the TSRA is calling him an idiot, or that he knew he was committing a felony, is beyond comprehension. They, in fact, say exactly the opposite.
 
Blume, thanks for the link:

Three times the three young man came by the table and on the third pass, the young man with the driver's license, produced the cash, and bought the handgun. Evidently the gun was passed off, almost immediately, inside or outside the building, to another of the three. This man, not only had no identification, he was an illegal alien.
Click to expand...

1. First of all, Fox news has it all wrong. The seller is not a "Texas gun dealer". Copeland did not have a federal license to sell firearms. Fox made a big deal of pointing out the fact that the guy is a veteran: The spectre of the awful BATFE picking on a veteran gets the blood up.

2. The seller violated the rules of the gunshow. Gunshow rules required that all sales go through a licensed firearms dealer.

3. Exhibitors at that gunshow were well aware that they would be under close scrutiny.

4. Millions of illegal aliens have drivers licenses.

At every gunshow there are those unlicensed sellers who are selling off their "private collections". Some of these guys sell dozens of guns every year.
 
Last edited:
At every gunshow there are those unlicensed sellers who are selling off their "private collections". Some of these guys sell dozens of guns every year.
Click to expand...

And provide fodder for the Brady Bunch hollering about "unlicensed dealers." Most gunnies pooh pooh the "unlicensed dealer" stuff, pointing out that everyone who sells or trades an individual weapon could fall under the "unlicensed dealer" definition. OTOH, we've all seen the tables stocked with dozens of brand new guns from "private collections" being sold with "no paperwork" by individuals seemingly thumbing their nose at the law. I would be all for stepped-up enforcement against such individuals by ATF, but don't see the need of any new laws.
 
I would be all for stepped-up enforcement against such individuals by ATF, but don't see the need of any new laws.
Click to expand...


Never said that we need any new laws: i do not see any need for new laws either. But the BATFE, state and local police need to step up to the plate and enforce existing federal law.
 
As it turns out the guy was not a "dealer" but a hobbyist who sells firearms.
Click to expand...

Except that the gunshow he was selling at required all sales to go through an FFL and Mr. Copeland was aware of this requirement.

How is the common citizen expected to act in such a situation? The ID is valid, so are they expected to refuse the sale based upon a biased "profile" of the buyer? We all know that the racist accusations would be flying in such a case.
Click to expand...

You neglected to mention that one of the three men came by and attempted to buy the firearm. When Mr. Copeland asked if they had ID, he said no. They then came by a second time and repeated the same process. On the third time, a different man in the group with a Texas ID purchased the same firearm that the other had looked at earlier. Mr. Copeland then sold him the gun violating the requirement to go through an FFL.

Copeland was apparently expected to believe that these guys were illegals based upon the fact that they were Hispanic, spoke Spanish, and wore cowboy clothing. Profiling anyone?
Click to expand...

Mr. Copeland wasn't convicted of selling to an illegal alien (an illegal sale). He was convicted of knowingly participating in a straw purchase. Apparently, based on the facts above, the jury felt that a reasonable person should have known that a straw purchase was taking place.

How either of you could come to the conclusion that the TSRA is calling him an idiot, or that he knew he was committing a felony, is beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...

You enter a gun show and get handed a flier telling you that Austin PD and ATF are present and that all sales must go through an FFL. Then you get the shady scenario outlined above and you decide that THIS is a sale you just can't afford to refuse? You are definitely an idiot at that point. The only question left is whether you knowingly commited the felony.
 
"How either of you could come to the conclusion that the TSRA is calling him an idiot, or that he knew he was committing a felony, is beyond comprehension."

It's in the article. He said he broke the rules because it was his right. He's an idiot.

"When we talked with him on the phone and asked him why he broke the "rules" of the show, he said, "By golly, it's my constitutional right.""
 
Mr. Copeland wasn't convicted of selling to an illegal alien (an illegal sale). He was convicted of knowingly participating in a straw purchase.
Click to expand...

I think there's some confusion about this point. I am pretty sure there is no actual law that says you can't buy a gun for someone else. The "straw purchase" law normally refers to the form you fill out when you buy from a licensed dealer - you must answer the question about whether you're the "actual purchaser" truthfully. If it's a private sale, you're not obliged to make any such declaration, and even if you did you could not be charged with anything for lying on that point - you are just talking to another private citizen.

The relevant laws say that:

-the seller cannot sell the gun if they have a reason to believe that the buyer is not qualified (being in the country illegally, having a felony conviction etc, not being resident in the state in the case of a handgun sale etc.)

-the buyer is guilty of being in possession of a firearm while in the country illegally

-the buyer is also guilty of transferring a gun to someone who they have reason to believe is not qualified (due to being in the country illegally)

-the final recipient is guilty of being in possession of a firearm while in the country illegally.

If you sell a gun to someone in a private sale knowing that they intend to transfer it to someone else, this is not a crime in itself. You have to have a reason to believe that the person you're selling to is disqualified.
 
I haven't seen the specific federal law he was convicted of violating and the news reports haven't been too helpful in that regard. I am guessing he ran afoul of 18 USC 922 (a)(5):

It shall be unlawful for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
Click to expand...

Assuming the TSRA report is correct, I could see where a jury might assume that you had reasonable cause to believe a person was not a resident if you ask him for a driver's license twice, he declines and then comes back with another person. I'm sure the fact that the gunshow required all sales to go through an FFL and Mr. Copeland chose to ignore that requirement did not help him with the jury either.

Also note that with this fact pattern it doesn't matter whether the buyers are three hispanic guys from Mexico or three white American citizens in overalls from Iowa.
 
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise
dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
...
...
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
Click to expand...

Or it may have been this one - depends on which one they could prove he had knowledge of I suppose.

After all, the guy he transferred the firearm to did in fact had a Texas drivers's license.

The worst thing is that the guy who walked free was in a much better position to know this fact than the seller was. But he wouldn't have made much of an example from the ATF's point of view - that's why they went after the seller.

Really the fact that he ignored the rules of the gun show should not count as evidence against him. It might be ignorant but I'm pretty sure it's not a crime - and it doesn't indicate that he knew the guy was an illegal alien or a non-resident. I hope he appeals and wins.
 
"But the BATFE, state and local police need to step up to the plate and enforce existing federal law."

How do you propose that the state and local police enforce federal law? <scratches head> Do they have access to the federal court system?

Maybe you meant refer the info to the federal authorities for review?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top