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.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case”
- Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:27 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
- Replies: 70
- Views: 9097
- Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:19 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
- Replies: 70
- Views: 9097
Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
Superman wrote:Let's hope that they rule that it was not a "straw purchase," and that it was simply an abuse of an "employee discount." That's really all it was since both were legal to own a gun. His uncle was not prohibited from owning a firearm and it was two separate purchases...even going through FFL's and background checks. This is craziness.
Wouldn't every single FFL be in this category then? An FFL buys guns with the intent to "promptly re-sell it to another person who is legally entitled to own the firearm." Again...this is craziness.The key issue is whether Abramski committed a crime by buying a gun, and then promptly re-selling it to another person who was legally entitled to own the firearm.
It would seem the definiton of "straw purchase" is being changed here.
- Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:28 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
- Replies: 70
- Views: 9097
Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
The FFL has required license.