TexasCHLforum.com

Superman wrote:Either way, this case goes against the intent on the law. The intent is to prevent someone who is legally allowed to buy a firearm from buying a firearm for someone who it is illegal for them to buy it themselves. This does not fit that intent. There were two completely separate transactions taking place. The first buyer was the intended owner, even if the time frame was small. He then sold it to his uncle and that transaction was completely legal as well. His uncle was legally allowed to purchase a firearm...again, it went through an FFL with a NICS check. Two separate legal transactions.

The intent is to keep felons from obtaining firearms. In this case, two rights make a wrong?

So the whole case could hinge proving the "intent" of the original buyer. Proving he knew when he bought the glock he was going to resell it.
If nothing else, this case will prove all the wrangling these guys did to save $100 buck was not worth it. If you asked him now he wishes a 1000 times over he would have just "gifted" it to him.

I agree that he MAY have broken the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.... SCOTUS will now make the decision, and possibly clarify the limits of the law.

Unfortunately, the case may be clouded by the fact that the accused was the subject of arrest for bank robbery. The straw purchase violation was filed following his release from the more serious charges which were dismissed for lack of evidence.

http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/269289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Muddies the waters a bit, no?

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?

The thought that I don't pay more is like the government giving you something for free. When one group gets a discount another group pays more. Glock is a company that wants to make a profit. They adjust their prices to do that. Someone pays less, someone else pays more. Just basic economics.

RoyGBiv wrote:I agree that he MAY have broken the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.... SCOTUS will now make the decision, and possibly clarify the limits of the law.

Unfortunately, the case may be clouded by the fact that the accused was the subject of arrest for bank robbery. The straw purchase violation was filed following his release from the more serious charges which were dismissed for lack of evidence.

http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/269289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Muddies the waters a bit, no?

Interesting for sure.....go after him with a bunch of charges, in the hopes that one will stick....reminds me of the school GFZ that has been discussed where it seems that violation of the GFZ is seldom the only charge, but rather an add on charge when someone was doing something else bad and happened to have a gun...

Doesn't really change the main point of the discussion though - straw purchase or not / letter vs. spirit of the law...

IMO this was a "straw Purchase" from the very start. The person purchasing the gun merely did so to get the discount for the ultimate end user. If he had purchased it as a gift, it would be a different matter. There is no allowance in the law (which may be an unfortunate problem) for "buying a gun at a dicount for a relative who is otherwise legal to own a firearm" and while the intent may be to prevent a "legal" buyer from purchasing a gun FOR (but not as a gift) someone who was otherwise disqualified from making the purchase themselves, the wording does not discriminate between such an obviously illegal purchase and one that might otherwise be legal (say, if he bought the gun and then a suitable time later sold it to his relative.)

jimlongley wrote:(say, if he bought the gun and then a suitable time later sold it to his relative.)

As soon as you add a variable that can be loosely interpreted by what ever arm of the law you have the attention of.. problems will arise.
Who decides "suitable time later" ? Obviously it wont be the one charged.. so the officer? Patrol Sergeant? DA? BATF agent? Judge?

Many a person has bought a gun with the intent of keeping it, then resold it hours, days later. Need of cash,,, wife got mad, shot once and does not feel right, bout a left handed bolt rifle on clearance,, and did not noting it was for a lefty.. what ever the reason....

"They" enacted waiting periods to purchase a gun.. Now we need waiting periods to sell a gun????

Clearly the law was not enacted to prevent Mr x from buying a gun at a good price and selling that gun to someone else who is legally allowed to own it as the original purchaser.

Once again, making criminals of otherwise honest citizens.

This case will be interesting to follow.

E.Marquez wrote:

jimlongley wrote:(say, if he bought the gun and then a suitable time later sold it to his relative.)

As soon as you add a variable that can be loosely interpreted by what ever arm of the law you have the attention of.. problems will arise.
Who decides "suitable time later" ? Obviously it wont be the one charged.. so the officer? Patrol Sergeant? DA? BATF agent? Judge?

Many a person has bought a gun with the intent of keeping it, then resold it hours, days later. Need of cash,,, wife got mad, shot once and does not feel right, bout a left handed bolt rifle on clearance,, and did not noting it was for a lefty.. what ever the reason....

"They" enacted waiting periods to purchase a gun.. Now we need waiting periods to sell a gun????

Clearly the law was not enacted to prevent Mr x from buying a gun at a good price and selling that gun to someone else who is legally allowed to own it as the original purchaser.

Once again, making criminals of otherwise honest citizens.

This case will be interesting to follow.

You beat me to it! I was going to ask what is a "suitable" time and who is going to decide that? 1 week, 1 month, 1 year or 5 years??? Please, lets not give them anymore bright ideas.

IMHO this is not a straw purchase for the reasons stated here. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict SCOTUS will rule it was a straw purchase with Justice Roberts as the swing vote. He has no problem re-writing laws. BATFE will then be free to come down on any one buying and flipping weapons. With that said I hope and pray they make the correct and opposite decision.

rotor wrote:

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?

The thought that I don't pay more is like the government giving you something for free. When one group gets a discount another group pays more. Glock is a company that wants to make a profit. They adjust their prices to do that. Someone pays less, someone else pays more. Just basic economics.

It's more than a bit simplistic. Glock considers use by police to be advertising. They spend a lot on advertising and yes that is built into the price you pay. Your belief seems to be based on the idea that if they didn't "advertise" by giving cops a price break then they wouldn't replace that advertising with something else.
That's a bit of a leap. Not to mention they don't lose money on LEO sales anyway. Many companies market discounts towards specific groups and the idea that prices for every other group goes up because of it seems a bit off.

rotor wrote:

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?

The thought that I don't pay more is like the government giving you something for free. When one group gets a discount another group pays more. Glock is a company that wants to make a profit. They adjust their prices to do that. Someone pays less, someone else pays more. Just basic economics.

It's more than a bit simplistic. Glock considers use by police to be advertising. They spend a lot on advertising and yes that is built into the price you pay. Your belief seems to be based on the idea that if they didn't "advertise" by giving cops a price break then they wouldn't replace that advertising with something else.
That's a bit of a leap. Not to mention they don't lose money on LEO sales anyway. Many companies market discounts towards specific groups and the idea that prices for every other group goes up because of it seems a bit off.

This case is not as simple as it appears:

The straw purchase is only part of the appeal, the other involves the suppression of evidence that led to Abramski's conviction.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Pu ... 4992.p.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Specifically re: the straw purchase...
The government will certainly argue that since Abramski received payment in advance, and that payment was undeniably to purchase the gun, then it was a straw purchase. His only defense will be to argue that the prohibition against straw purchases is limited to transfers to prohibited persons, IMO.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020130123101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In order to implement the transaction, Alvarez sent Abramski a check for $400 on November 15, 2009. The term "Glock 19 handgun" was written in the memo line of the check.

On November 17, 2009, Abramski went to the firearms dealer in Collinsville and purchased a Glock 19 handgun, among other items, paying for them with more than $2000 in cash

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote:

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?

The thought that I don't pay more is like the government giving you something for free. When one group gets a discount another group pays more. Glock is a company that wants to make a profit. They adjust their prices to do that. Someone pays less, someone else pays more. Just basic economics.

It's more than a bit simplistic. Glock considers use by police to be advertising. They spend a lot on advertising and yes that is built into the price you pay. Your belief seems to be based on the idea that if they didn't "advertise" by giving cops a price break then they wouldn't replace that advertising with something else.
That's a bit of a leap. Not to mention they don't lose money on LEO sales anyway. Many companies market discounts towards specific groups and the idea that prices for every other group goes up because of it seems a bit off.

Still does not negate my argument that when you give someone a discount someone else ends up paying more. You can call it advertising or anything else you want and I think that I understand with my limited IQ that advertising is built into the price of the gun. This must be a substantial "advertising discount" as it brought this guy to a supreme court case. When one group gets a discount the rest pay more. I also resent giving one citizen group a discount that another group can't get. When affirmative action is used to put minority students into a college it means non-minority students don't get in even if more qualified. In this particular case we can see how this "discount" was abused. He was probably in violation of a Glock policy by selling this off the way he did and I bet that they had him sign a form saying that he would not sell it the way he did. I believe that this was a straw purchase, the guy lied when he signed the form. It was not a gift for his wife or son. I agree that the intent of the law was probably not to stop this kind of sale. I think the killer is that he lied when he signed the form.

txglock21 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

jimlongley wrote:(say, if he bought the gun and then a suitable time later sold it to his relative.)

As soon as you add a variable that can be loosely interpreted by what ever arm of the law you have the attention of.. problems will arise.
Who decides "suitable time later" ? Obviously it wont be the one charged.. so the officer? Patrol Sergeant? DA? BATF agent? Judge?

Many a person has bought a gun with the intent of keeping it, then resold it hours, days later. Need of cash,,, wife got mad, shot once and does not feel right, bout a left handed bolt rifle on clearance,, and did not noting it was for a lefty.. what ever the reason....

"They" enacted waiting periods to purchase a gun.. Now we need waiting periods to sell a gun????

Clearly the law was not enacted to prevent Mr x from buying a gun at a good price and selling that gun to someone else who is legally allowed to own it as the original purchaser.

Once again, making criminals of otherwise honest citizens.

This case will be interesting to follow.

You beat me to it! I was going to ask what is a "suitable" time and who is going to decide that? 1 week, 1 month, 1 year or 5 years??? Please, lets not give them anymore bright ideas.

Exactly. Tough to draw the line. But in this case, he bought it with the express purpose of reselling it, and that would be a violation of the letter, and the spirit, of the law.