• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The real gun control problem

Chillfolks

Chillfolks

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
20,692
Reaction score
11,234
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Active-duty US Navy servicewoman from Norfolk admits to illegal gun buy

The short version, a young lady in the Navy did a straw purchase of 5 handguns and 200 rounds of ammunition in VA for a couple in New Jersey. She was caught and plead guilty. The worst she can get is a 250,000 fine and up to five years in jail. IMO its not severe enough. The 250k fine is ok but the jail sentence should be no less than 5 years up to 15 per gun. So in this case a 1.25 million dollar fine and a jail term of 25 to 75 years would be appropriate.

My question is to all the people looking to harass law abiding citizens in the name of “gun control”. What would be your sentencing guidelines on straw purchasers, something that would cut down on people not allowed to own a gun from getting one.
 
The only thing wrong here is the Right is wrongly being infringed resulting in others helping other folks out.
 
Chillfolks said:
Active-duty US Navy servicewoman from Norfolk admits to illegal gun buy

The short version, a young lady in the Navy did a straw purchase of 5 handguns and 200 rounds of ammunition in VA for a couple in New Jersey. She was caught and plead guilty. The worst she can get is a 250,000 fine and up to five years in jail. IMO its not severe enough. The 250k fine is ok but the jail sentence should be no less than 5 years up to 15 per gun. So in this case a 1.25 million dollar fine and a jail term of 25 to 75 years would be appropriate.

My question is to all the people looking to harass law abiding citizens in the name of “gun control”. What would be your sentencing guidelines on straw purchasers, something that would cut down on people not allowed to own a gun from getting one.
Click to expand...

She shouldn't be charged at all.
 
Excon said:
The only thing wrong here is the Right is wrongly being infringed resulting in others helping other folks out.
Click to expand...

PirateMk1 said:
She shouldn't be charged at all.
Click to expand...

I am guessing you are both talking about felons and restoration of rights or opposition to the age or testing requirements. However current laws don't allow it.

But to play along let's say the law did allow anyone to own firearms. I would still support a law making it illegal to guy a gun with the sole purpose of buying it for someone else. And would like to see stiff fines and penalties when it waa done.
 
Chillfolks said:
I am guessing you are both talking about felons and restoration of rights or opposition to the age or testing requirements. However current laws don't allow it.

But to play along let's say the law did allow anyone to own firearms. I would still support a law making it illegal to guy a gun with the sole purpose of buying it for someone else. And would like to see stiff fines and penalties when it waa done.
Click to expand...

The intent of the law against straw purchases was to criminalize buying a gun for a prohibited person. It's been extended to buying a gun for even non-prohibited persons, except that purchases for bona fide gifts are allowed. IMO, Abramski vs US was a travesty of justice. Not only was the intended recipient not a prohibited person, the buyer and the recipient went to an FFL for the transfer where the recipient passed a background check. The purchase wasn't intended to allow a non-prohibited person to acquire a gun, but to get it cheaper under the Glock Blue Label program.

Straw purchases should only be a crime if the recipient is a prohibited person.
 
Chillfolks said:
But to play along let's say the law did allow anyone to own firearms. I would still support a law making it illegal to guy a gun with the sole purpose of buying it for someone else. And would like to see stiff fines and penalties when it waa done.
Click to expand...
That is dumb. There would be no such law in existence if the adhered to the "Right" of not infringing.

And fines & penalties would also not be there if they adhered to not infringing.
 
Rucker61 said:
Straw purchases should only be a crime if the recipient is a prohibited person.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The gift exemption I am ok with but would put some limitations on the purchase. I would even like to see no-one on the prohibited list. If you are such a danger to society you can't express your rights, then you are too dangerous to be free in society.

But giving someone cash to buy a gun for you just doesn't fly. Be responsible and get it on your own
 
Chillfolks said:
I disagree. The gift exemption I am ok with but would put some limitations on the purchase. I would even like to see no-one on the prohibited list. If you are such a danger to society you can't express your rights, then you are too dangerous to be free in society.

But giving someone cash to buy a gun for you just doesn't fly. Be responsible and get it on your own
Click to expand...

But why is getting a discount illegal if the recipient still passes a background check to take possession?
 
Rucker61 said:
But why is getting a discount illegal if the recipient still passes a background check to take possession?
Click to expand...
That's a why is a discount allowed in some places but not all issue.
In my scenario if you want the discount so bad travel to the place to get it. I would do away with the not being able to cross State lines for a gun purchase. But I would require it be an in person purchase
 
I agree...the sentences for straw purchases should be considerably higher. She knowingly facilitated a criminal act, knowingly committed a criminal act, and lied on a federal form. Drop the hammer.
 
Chillfolks said:
That's a why is a discount allowed in some places but not all issue.
In my scenario if you want the discount so bad travel to the place to get it. I would do away with the not being able to cross State lines for a gun purchase. But I would require it be an in person purchase
Click to expand...

In Abramski v US, Abramski, a cop, used his uncle's money to buy a Glock under the Blue Label program, saving say, $100. Before giving the gun to his uncle, they went to another FFL where the uncle filled out a Form 4473 and passed a background check before taking possession. While Glock or the first FFL may have been "harmed" by this transaction, society was not.
 
Rucker61 said:
The intent of the law against straw purchases was to criminalize buying a gun for a prohibited person. It's been extended to buying a gun for even non-prohibited persons, except that purchases for bona fide gifts are allowed. IMO, Abramski vs US was a travesty of justice. Not only was the intended recipient not a prohibited person, the buyer and the recipient went to an FFL for the transfer where the recipient passed a background check. The purchase wasn't intended to allow a non-prohibited person to acquire a gun, but to get it cheaper under the Glock Blue Label program.

Straw purchases should only be a crime if the recipient is a prohibited person.
Click to expand...
The intended recipients of the weapons WERE prohibited persons.

Shyheim Tyson has a criminal history going back to 2014.
#1 AGG ASSLT SBI
#2 AGG ASSLT SBI
#3 CONSPIRACY
#4 AGG ASSLT SBI
#5 AGG ASSLT SBI
#6 AGG ASSLT W/FIREARM
 
Rucker61 said:
In Abramski v US, Abramski, a cop, used his uncle's money to buy a Glock under the Blue Label program, saving say, $100. Before giving the gun to his uncle, they went to another FFL where the uncle filled out a Form 4473 and passed a background check before taking possession. While Glock or the first FFL may have been "harmed" by this transaction, society was not.
Click to expand...

Abramski lied on the initial 4473 that is a crime and as a former Law Enforcement he should of known better than commit a crime to save a few bucks. Society is harmed when people do not obey the law.
 
VanceMack said:
The intended recipients of the weapons WERE prohibited persons.

Shyheim Tyson has a criminal history going back to 2014.
#1 AGG ASSLT SBI
#2 AGG ASSLT SBI
#3 CONSPIRACY
#4 AGG ASSLT SBI
#5 AGG ASSLT SBI
#6 AGG ASSLT W/FIREARM
Click to expand...

In Abramski v US, the intended recipient was the uncle, Angel "Danny" Alvarez, and he passed a NICS check.
 
Chillfolks said:
Abramski lied on the initial 4473 that is a crime and as a former Law Enforcement he should of known better than commit a crime to save a few bucks. Society is harmed when people do not obey the law.
Click to expand...

So you'll follow a UBC law to the letter?
 
Chillfolks said:
Active-duty US Navy servicewoman from Norfolk admits to illegal gun buy

The short version, a young lady in the Navy did a straw purchase of 5 handguns and 200 rounds of ammunition in VA for a couple in New Jersey. She was caught and plead guilty. The worst she can get is a 250,000 fine and up to five years in jail. IMO its not severe enough. The 250k fine is ok but the jail sentence should be no less than 5 years up to 15 per gun. So in this case a 1.25 million dollar fine and a jail term of 25 to 75 years would be appropriate.

My question is to all the people looking to harass law abiding citizens in the name of “gun control”. What would be your sentencing guidelines on straw purchasers, something that would cut down on people not allowed to own a gun from getting one.
Click to expand...



Gun lovers will say that if you outlaw guns, then the only ones with guns will be outlaws.


They miss the point that almost all guns were legally bought and/or owned at some point before finding their way into criminals hands.

The above case is a prime example of how it is done.

Ban the legal supply of guns and you will see gun numbers fall. Criminals won't be able to get their guns from people who legally acquired them and thus will be disarmed over time as guns are confiscated and seized by law enforcement.
 
Rucker61 said:
So you'll follow a UBC law to the letter?
Click to expand...

If the penalties are stiff enough I would. That's party of being a law abiding citizen.
 
Rich2018 said:
Gun lovers will say that if you outlaw guns, then the only ones with guns will be outlaws.


They miss the point that almost all guns were legally bought and/or owned at some point before finding their way into criminals hands.

The above case is a prime example of how it is done.

Ban the legal supply of guns and you will see gun numbers fall. Criminals won't be able to get their guns from people who legally acquired them and thus will be disarmed over time as guns are confiscated and seized by law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't support the gun banning idiotic solution you junk up these threads with. This case is a good example of why we need to toughen up the penalties for people who break the law not add dumb laws
 
VanceMack said:
I agree...the sentences for straw purchases should be considerably higher. She knowingly facilitated a criminal act, knowingly committed a criminal act, and lied on a federal form. Drop the hammer.
Click to expand...

What did she do wrong? Why could this couple not purchase the guns themselves? Can't you purchase guns from a private individual with proper process?
 
Chillfolks said:
If the penalties are stiff enough I would. That's party of being a law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...

It can't be enforced. According to the bill passed in the Senate, if you're shooting on a friend's land with him, you need a background check to shoot his gun. If he's showing you his new rifle at his house and goes to the bathroom, if you're still holding it you've committed a crime.

Wait, you'd only do if if the penalties were stiff enough? That's not part of being a law abiding citizen, that's just a judgment of risk/reward. If it was just about being law abiding, it should matter what the penalty was for disobedience.
 
Rucker61 said:
It can't be enforced. According to the bill passed in the Senate, if you're shooting on a friend's land with him, you need a background check to shoot his gun. If he's showing you his new rifle at his house and goes to the bathroom, if you're still holding it you've committed a crime.

Wait, you'd only do if if the penalties were stiff enough? That's not part of being a law abiding citizen, that's just a judgment of risk/reward. If it was just about being law abiding, it should matter what the penalty was for disobedience.
Click to expand...
I don't support the new UBC law and have gone over what I think they shpuld be, but if you need me to splain it agiam i would.

I hit enter after editing to much out. If the penalties are stiff enough I would suspect most people would follow the UBC. Following law's well that's part of being a law abiding citizen its what I meant to type
 
Chillfolks said:
I don't support the new UBC law and have gone over what I think they shpuld be, but if you need me to splain it agiam i would.

I hit enter after editing to much out. If the penalties are stiff enough I would suspect most people would follow the UBC. Following law's well that's part of being a law abiding citizen its what I meant to type
Click to expand...

It's not enforceable. There is zero risk to breaking this law. It will also never pass the Senate.
 
Integrityrespec said:
What did she do wrong? Why could this couple not purchase the guns themselves? Can't you purchase guns from a private individual with proper process?
Click to expand...

You can buy a gun as a gift but there is a process to do so. It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else, they pay you to do paperwork then give them the gun. She did the later ams got caught. There is also some question if the Jersey couple legally could of owned a gun.
 
Rucker61 said:
It's not enforceable. There is zero risk to breaking this law. It will also never pass the Senate.
Click to expand...
Ok what's not enforceable and has zero risk to breaking? The law that this woman broke and is now being enforced with the risk of facing a 250K fine and up to 5 years in jail? Or the new purposed law?
 
Chillfolks said:
Ok what's not enforceable and has zero risk to breaking? The law that this woman broke and is now being enforced with the risk of facing a 250K fine and up to 5 years in jail? Or the new purposed law?
Click to expand...

A UBC. No, straw purchases can be enforced. They rarely are, however. See "Jalita Johnson".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom