TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:If you.have doubt that the buyer is disqualifief from buying firearms, ask the buyer to pay ectra $20 for an FFL transfer fee. Last transfet, i paid only $10 with my CHL

You can do that if it gives you peace of mind but let's be honest and admit the problem is not guns. The problem is criminals. The gun control fanatics want us to believe there was no murder and no violence in ancient Greece and Rome because they didn't have guns, but history says different.

Apparently the problem in this case is New York residents, apparently including a co-conspirator, the Mayor, seem to be violating laws.
The problem is those darn criminals.
The people exercising freedom in selling used light bulbs, used appliances, used tools, or whatever, committed no offense.

I want to see current laws enforced.

Beiruty wrote:The beter way is to let an FFL do the transfer of your private sale.

Or not....

I've nothing against FFLs, but it would be an even wiser thing to simply not sell a gun privately to someone whom you either don't know, or who makes your spidey sense tingle. I don't want to pay a a fee for transferring a gun that I own, and I'm not inclined to transfer it through an FFL even if the other guy will pay for it because I very deliberately do not want there to be a paper trail in the gummint's hands. What happens to them after I buy them is none of the gummint's dadgum business.

I believe that it isn't the gummint's dadgum business when I originally buy the gun from a dealer, either. If I had my way, there would be no 4473, and there would be no NICS or any other kind of background check. I don't want them involved in my personal affairs at all. If I involve an FFL in a private transaction, then I have just involved the gummint — with all due respect to any members who are FFLs.

Brady Dictionary:
Loophole [loop-hohl] or (ˈluːpˌhəʊl)
–noun
1) freedom

Usage: Householders are set to defy a law banning “old fashioned” light
bulbs by exploiting a loophole in new legislation. Legislators want to
eliminate that "loophole"

Loopholes can be dangerous to a totalitarian government.


Meanwhile' I sent API and Reuters press release Depts questions about when they'll look into this latest "Watergate"

Is this the definition of a straw purchase?

MeMelYup wrote:Is this the definition of a straw purchase?

Depends on the ATF agent and the true story of what they were doing.

MeMelYup wrote:Is this the definition of a straw purchase?

Not really. A "straw man" purchase is knowingly selling of a firearm to a person who is not prohibited from possessing firearms so he can give or sell it to someone who is prohibited from possessing firearms. The NYC COPS are not COPS in Arizona (or anywhere outside of NY), they are citizens. Citizens can only purchase handguns in their home states, thus the NYC COPS violated the Gun Control Act of 1968. Also, I'm not aware of Arizona law, but they may have violated Arizona law by using a false ID to purchase a firearm. I presume the false ID was an Arizona driver's license, but that's just a guess.

Chas.

Does this incursion into far-off Arizona by peace lovin' billionaire Mayor Bloomie's well paid and pensioned minions signal that New York city is safe for anyone who may want to visit the Big (horse) Apple?

Well, I have news for all of 'em! I ain't never goin' back to New York!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Is this the definition of a straw purchase?

Not really. A "straw man" purchase is knowingly selling of a firearm to a person who is not prohibited from possessing firearms so he can give or sell it to someone who is prohibited from possessing firearms. The NYC COPS are not COPS in Arizona (or anywhere outside of NY), they are citizens. Citizens can only purchase handguns in their home states, thus the NYC COPS violated the Gun Control Act of 1968. Also, I'm not aware of Arizona law, but they may have violated Arizona law by using a false ID to purchase a firearm. I presume the false ID was an Arizona driver's license, but that's just a guess.

Chas.

@Charles - If they did not disclose they were buying the weapons for another entity--using that entity's money--is it illegal?

DOJ Letter to NYC wrote:
http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/JohnFeinblatt_ltr_NYC.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"...you should be aware that there are potential legal liabilities that may attach when persons outside of law enforcement undertake actions typically reserved for law enforcement agents. This risk is particularly acute when such persons, however will-intentioned, but without proper law enforcement authority, misrepresent that they are the actual purchasers of the firearms when, if fact, the purchases are being made on behalf of another person or entity (for instance, on behalf of the City)..."

tacticool wrote:The gun control fanatics want us to believe there was no murder and no violence in ancient Greece and Rome because they didn't have guns, but history says different.

You're giving them too much credit --making them sound ignorant rather than what they actually are: delusional, insane, or rapacious. This article makes the following point about what these extremist liberals believe: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagain ... efense.htm Quoting from the article:

"For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence.""

These people don't just want to deprive you of the means to defend yourself, they want to subordinate you to their will, and if that comes at the cost of subordinating you to the will of vicious predators they're fine with that. They see themselves as using power to force others to act in ways they believe will bring about a perfect world, and they seek to delegitimize all force that doesn't serve their own purposes.

From the article, it does not appear that a crime was committee even if the lying, felony-committing NYC COPS really said what they claim to have said. The mere statement that "I probably wouldn't pass the background check anyway" does not seem to put the seller on notice of facts that meet the U.S. Code elements of the violation. The actor must know or have "reasonable cause" to believe . . . The relevant portions of 18 U.S.C. 922 (d) are set out below.

Chas.

18 U.S.C. 922(e) wrote:(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 -

• (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding year;
  (2) is a fugitive from justice;
  (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
  (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
  (5) who, being an alien -
  • (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
    (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been
    admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as
    that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration
    and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
  (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
  (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -
  • (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
    (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
    (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
  (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person
  who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

i8godzilla wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Is this the definition of a straw purchase?

@Charles - If they did not disclose they were buying the weapons for another entity--using that entity's money--is it illegal?

DOJ Letter to NYC wrote:

I wonder that too. If I go to a show to browse and a buddy gives me cash to grab a deal for him (because he has to work but has a CHL), is that illegal? we arent attempting to circumvent any laws but the first question on a 4473 asks about that.

I think it might be helpful if folks who attend our gunshows would go from table to table of private sellers and ask them to use their cell phone cameras and photograph or video every prospective buyer they do not know personally. We might be very surprised at who turns up. Might even catch a NYC detective. And if the sound is running, well who knows. Could form the basis of the downfall of a certain mayor.

I should also add that perhaps law enforcement sometimes adds to the under-the-radar people who commit crimes by not doing forced committals of suspects with mental issues. I have been involved in a couple of them over the years. However, I'm not up on the laws for that, but I'm sure Charles or Excalibur know something about it. I believe such a forced committal shows up in a background check. (???)

I ddn't see any comment in this thread about the following quote from the article:

After similar transgressions were uncovered at gun shows in other states, some operators entered into agreements with New York City requiring that private sellers arrange background checks of all gun buyers.

Is this disturbing to anyone else? It sounds like the NYPD has been at this for a while and that they are unlawfully intimidating US citizens to do as the NYPD pleases regardless of the fact that the NYPD doesn't actually have legal authority to do any of this.