TexasCHLforum.com

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...

Without reading up on the letter of the law, my first impression is that it WAS a straw purchase. He bought it (at a discount) because his relative couldn't buy it (at a discount). He didn't gift it to the relative, he sold it to the relative, and that was his plan from the beginning.

Aside from that, he did the right things - FFL's. This may be a case where the intent of the law isn't clearly expressed in the letter of the law, but nevertheless, it seems he broke the letter of the law, and it's up to the court to rule on the intent of the law.

In hindsight, he should have gifted it to the relative, and the relative should have given him a really really nice Christmas present.