Something we can agree on, good. I thought the same thing, that they were trying to create law through regulations. Not cool. Straw purchase = buying it for someone who isn't legal to have it in the first place. Besides, if the guy was trying to be deceptive, why would he go through the hassle of doing the transfer through an FFL? Hope the SCOTUS exercises some "common sense" on this one.EEllis wrote:Well it must not be that clear because 2 of the 5 circuit courts have case law that says otherwise. There is also the fact that just because a govt agency prints something up doesn't give it the force of law. The BATF decided on it's own to change the forms and to "create" the question for which the legislature had no input on. Obviously they, BATF, are a licensing agency as well as a law enforcement one so sure they may be able to change regulations and paperwork but should that paperwork automaticly be give the force of law? Pulling someones licence? Maybe. Sending someone to jail? Another thing entirely.rotor wrote: All this seems pretty clear to me. He is guilty of a straw purchase.
Search found 1 match
Return to “SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case”
- Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:33 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
- Replies: 70
- Views: 8475