Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 288

Thread: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I agree, since the intent of the law is to prevent a prohibited person from offering you, as a non-prohibited person, the cash to buy a gun for them; it was not intended to prevent the gifting (or sale) of a legally purchased gun to a non-prohibited person.
    I bet more minors have died from adults providing alcohol for them then people killed by straw purchase guns. Lets work on that if anything.

  2. #32
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    I read it and I disagree with the Court's ruling. It isn't going to stop guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. And yes it does appear you would be breaking the law if you bought a gun for a friend, which also confirms my opinion that the ruling is wrong.

  3. #33
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Danarhea
    To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

    Discussion?
    I'm sure those who would purchase a gun for a potential criminal would respect this law. I'm sure this won't only affect people who wish to buy gifts for their family members.

    I wait gleefully for the news of plummeting violent crime, as all the criminals become productive members of society because their straw purchasers tell them "Sorry, it's illegal now, and I respect the law."

    Now maybe the criminals will too.



    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.
    Anyone who is a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. If the former criminal cannot be trusted to own a gun, then they can not be trusted to be a citizen either.

    I somehow doubt one with criminal intent will give up their ways simply because they cannot purchase a gun legally. Besides, it's a basic human right. Or do you oppose human rights for reformed criminals?
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  4. #34
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager1 View Post
    I don't know, but buying one for someone who can not pass a background check is different I suppose. Personally with the advanced 3D Printers all this is going to be mute eventually. You will be able to make your own weapons.
    I have a printer file to make a 3-D gun. However, the law says that, if you print a gun, you are required to put a slug of metal in it so that metal detectors can detect it. If you don't, then it is prison.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #35
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I have a printer file to make a 3-D gun. However, the law says that, if you print a gun, you are required to put a slug of metal in it so that metal detectors can detect it. If you don't, then it is prison.
    How exactly would you enforce that law? Seems to me if someone wants to print a plastic gun to circumvent a metal detector, by the time the crime is known it would be too late to prevent anything.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  6. #36
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,700

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Your birthday gift complaint is easily circumvented by a gift certificate. I have no problem with the ruling. It was the right thing to do.

    Just make sure the gun shop has access to these:
    It's perfectly legal for anyone to give a firearm to anyone else who isn't a prohibited person. To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a required "holding period". This ruling seems to play to the letter of the law with no regard to the common sense intent of the law. It's one of those deals where, in this particular case, a "crime" was committed even though there was no harm to any party.

    To put this in perspective, let's say that you did your taxes and claimed $30,000 in charitable contributions that you never made but your income was only $10,000 and you wouldn't have owed any tax anyway. Did you cheat? Yes, you did, but the impact of cheating was absolutely nothing.

  7. #37
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    It's simple logic. If they are too dangerous to own a firearm, they shouldn't be out. It's completely idiotic, that someone who gets a felony for possession of marijuann when their 19 can't even own a firearm when their 50. The logic is completely out the window on that one.
    I would agree with that also. Personally I think firearm restrictions should only come from firearm-related crimes.

    Edit: involving violence or threat of violence, I mean. Not "failed to register" or something.
    Last edited by Deuce; 06-16-14 at 02:29 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."
    Obviously, Abramski is guilty and I don't see how the law (see bolded above) could've been interpreted any other way. Scalia is wrong....

    In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

  9. #39
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    11-18-15 @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    440

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Your birthday gift complaint is easily circumvented by a gift certificate. I have no problem with the ruling. It was the right thing to do.

    Just make sure the gun shop has access to these:

    But why should any law abiding U.S. citizen have to circumvent a law like this?

    I could certainly understand if the point of this law was to stop non-law abiding citizens who are not legally allowed to purchase or own firearms from doing so but it seems like the sole intent is to hassle law abiding citizens who are well within their rights to own a firearm.

  10. #40
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Well-regulated militia.
    District of Columbia v. Heller
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •