Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

a reply to: XTexan

Yeah, we do have a shared account. However, Firearms stand in a class entirely and completely on their own for property rights in my experience. The right is to the individual as much as it is taken from the individual.

One example is how I understand the Class III weapons laws work. Those are the permits that allow military grade automatic weapons of all varieties, as well as sound suppressors and some other controlled items above the average guns.

If I went the distance to get my permit and clear all the checks, unless I'm very far off, I cannot leave the weapon in my wife's hands at the range if I run off to use the restroom. It has to be in my control, not hers, always and without exception, in showing that unique aspect of things.

For a married couple, suppose the husband owns a suppressor, which is legally registered with the ATF in his own name. The husband goes to work and leaves his suppressor at home. If the wife stays at home that day and could have access to the suppressor, she is committing a federal felony offense that carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years and/or a fine of up to $250,000. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861, 5871; 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b). Further, the suppressor is subject to seizure and forfeiture. 26 U.S.C. § 5872. If convicted, the wife loses her right to own or possess any kind of firearms in the future. In addition, if the husband instead left the suppressor in the wife’s vehicle, the vehicle is subject to seizure and forfeiture.

Source

Some of the extremes the BATF can take it to, like what the attorney site above outlines, are patently absurd in my view. There needs to be common sense and discretion too, IMO and that's where the best ideas fail. Absolutism to the point of just 'stuck on stupid' to quote a well known Katrina General.

a reply to: XTexan

Yeah there is shared ownership. In many cases it is going to be illegal for a person that can't buy a gun from having access to a gun. If you're married and the husband/wife has a DUI they can't drive your car. Same thing with a gun.

Think of it like prescription medication. Say I'm married and my wife hurts her back and has pain pills. That doesn't mean they are my pain pills or can use them.

The wife can buy a gun, but if she hands it off to her husband who isn't allowed to own one she is complicit. You are not allowed to buy a firearm for someone else (even if I disagree with it). Not for a spouse, not for a child, and not for a friend. This ruling doesn't change anything, it keeps the Federal restrictions the same. I'm pretty sure you can transfer ownership after a certain amount of time to avoid the straw purchaser issue.

I'm OK with keeping people who shouldn't own guns from owning them.

You made a really good point. VERY good point.

originally posted by: XTexan

Regulations are pointless now, it won't be long before people are printing up guns whenever they want. The Fed will lose all control of the firearms market. My fear is how they will respond to that.

My opinion of the Fed is that it is an overgrown infant that _still_ has not learned to tie its own shoes.

The blood of government is paperwork. When paper work flows, the government works. When documentation, permits, or what-ever get's held up or blocked... things grind to a halt.

Compare that to this ruling. Apply this ruling, in spirit, to the circulation of information within government. What they are saying is that if one branch collects information, but dares to send that information to another department... then it collected the information from a straw man premise. On behalf of another department. If we apply this ruling to the governments use of paperwork no department could share information with any other department. The census bureau couldn't share it's findings with congress. The whole collected institutions of federal governance would grind to a halt.

And this is exactly what they are doing to us.
It's insane, overbearing, and unreasonable.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: XTexan

Well let's think about this for a second. Let's pretend Wrabbit has a long history of violence, has been locked up a number of times in the loony bin because he was off his meds (OK this one has probably happened) multiple felonies etc. That's not going to show on the background check they perform on his wife.

Thats correct, but the crazy part is according to law he can have it in his possession and not be charged for being a felon and having the weapon in his possession. Haynes v. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 (1968)

Basically for a felon to have to register a weapon would be violating his 5th amendment rights. Therefore he doesn't.

Currently California Law requires a 10 day waiting period before finalizing purchase, fingerprint taken, photocopy two forms of ID, and do more paperwork than if you purchase a house.

To sell a firearm in California you have to take it to a FFL dealer, they have to do a background check on the new purchaser before the sale can proceed and the transfer is done.

Now that I live in the beautiful state of Virginia it is vastly different, there is always someone with an AR at a flea market no BG check on private purchases, the BG check on new is done while you wait, everything is pretty painless. There are no issues, they have the occasional AR at Walmart. The culture of shooting is looked at so differently here glad I found the right woman and got out of Kalifornia. 3 years and it's still somewhat of a culture shock. After 53 years in So Cal everyday I laugh at their perception of traffic. My not so little brother and I talk almost every week and his favorite topic is always firearms. I left him all of mine, the travel and laws were not worth the moving problems that could have been created with various laws from state. My competition AR is now considered a felony if Ca if found in your possession I shot 3 gun. In Ca. I even had a handgun that met the assault rifle description. Kinda of like CT.

We have lost our minds letting them do this to us. The VCDL does a fabulous job of protecting gun rights here in VA. if you spend money on anything join an organization that works at protecting your firearm rights. If you're in VA they are exceptional.

The example of the class 3 laws is crazy, IMHO. Seems Draconian to me. Wow...

The example of the DUI, I see what your saying, but he's not allowed to drive because his license has been suspended. Theoretically he has the ability to sell the car so his actual property rights haven't be revoked.

I understand the point ya'll are making with the class 3 example and the example of a wife buying a gun and her spouse not being allowed to have one.

But in reality, in the 2nd case with the spouse not being allowed to have one, the gun IS both of theirs up until they are busted for it. Even in a case where the wife locks the gun up in a safe, technically he could still get it if he really wanted to. Not sure if I'm making sense, but while in the eyes of the law he's not allowed to have one, in reality he has access to one. This is something that a background check, or a sheet of paper cannot and will not prevent. Sure the law may catch up to him at some point. But until then he has access to the gun.

Just wanted to add that I'm in no way advocating that spouse's violate the law by providing each other with firearms when one isn't allowed to have one. My initial comment was related to the fact that if a law abiding spouse buys a gun and lives with another law abiding spouse that in essence the other spouse now owns a gun despite the fact that he never went through a background check.

Sorry, I'm not an American and this is really confusing me. Lets see if I can show my confusion by example.

Husband buys gun, gives to wife as a 7th anniversary present. Wife is over the moon. Does just Hubby go to jail, or do they both?

Husband buys gun from shared cheque account. Takes it home, keeps it for 10-30 days, then sells it to his wife. She writes out a cheque from their joint account and he deposits it back into their shared bank account and all is well.

Husband buys gun from shared cheque account. Takes it home, keeps it for 10-30 days, gives it too wife for present, wife is excited and they have good time in the bedroom without the firearm. When Police arrive (about the gun) Husband claims wife paid for it with sex. Who goes to jail here and for what?

P

Talk about infringed.....these laws will just keep coming regularly piecing your right to bear arms away.....
Just as they have dome in Canada....they'll make it so expensive and difficult to own a gun of any kind that most will simply give them up.....
I hearby predict they will have all your guns by 2020.....or sooner....mark my words ...

originally posted by: pheonix358
Sorry, I'm not an American and this is really confusing me. Lets see if I can show my confusion by example.

Husband buys gun, gives to wife as a 7th anniversary present. Wife is over the moon. Does just Hubby go to jail, or do they both?

Depends on the state, in Texas unless the wife is a felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a gun then no laws were broken.

Husband buys gun from shared cheque account. Takes it home, keeps it for 10-30 days, then sells it to his wife. She writes out a cheque from their joint account and he deposits it back into their shared bank account and all is well.

Same as above, depends on the state. I can only answer for Texas. Edited to add, also not sure how your bank would react to that scenario, I would assume they would look at you weird and process it though.

Husband buys gun from shared cheque account. Takes it home, keeps it for 10-30 days, gives it too wife for present, wife is excited and they have good time in the bedroom without the firearm. When Police arrive (about the gun) Husband claims wife paid for it with sex. Who goes to jail here and for what?

P

I'll go ahead and say same as above, no gun laws would have been broken in Texas. I don't "think" a wife can be prosecuted for prostitution when the other participant is the husband. Also not sure if trading goods for sex is even considered prostitution or not?

originally posted by: pheonix358
Sorry, I'm not an American and this is really confusing me. Lets see if I can show my confusion by example.

Husband buys gun, gives to wife as a 7th anniversary present. Wife is over the moon. Does just Hubby go to jail, or do they both?

Husband buys gun from shared cheque account. Takes it home, keeps it for 10-30 days, then sells it to his wife. She writes out a cheque from their joint account and he deposits it back into their shared bank account and all is well.

Husband buys gun from shared cheque account. Takes it home, keeps it for 10-30 days, gives it too wife for present, wife is excited and they have good time in the bedroom without the firearm. When Police arrive (about the gun) Husband claims wife paid for it with sex. Who goes to jail here and for what?

P

This kind of confusion I can appreciate. Thank you for the questions!

In case one the answer is... hire a 220 dollar an hour lawyer.
In case two the answer is... hire a 500 dollar an hour lawyer team.
In case three the answer is ... hire a 2,000 dollar an hour law firm.

As one can see, in a few short hours, the firearm will cost the owner more than it is worth.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: Domo1
Problem is people lie.

I disagree.

The problem is liberty can be dangerous and America is full of timid and cowardly lions.

In my mind the turn point was laws that governed self individual behaviors; i.e. We never should have passed seat belt laws. Laws should have never become the dictates of what should be an individual sense; there's too much state "parentalism" in such laws.

Now we view safety as what's legal and what's illegal. If it's legal it must be safe. The American system of law wasn't designed to support such a philosophy as it over promotes dependency on government dictates. A philosophy of if it's legal it must be safe has easily transitioned to "If it's not safe we must make it illegal"; which is why this ruling came down the way it did, IMO.

a reply to: mikegrouchy

I don't see why they would need a lawyer in any of those situations? Though like I said it does vary from state to state. In any case you could always just bring the gun to Texas and do the transfer here, lol.

originally posted by: stirling
Talk about infringed.....these laws will just keep coming regularly piecing your right to bear arms away.....
Just as they have dome in Canada....they'll make it so expensive and difficult to own a gun of any kind that most will simply give them up.....
I hearby predict they will have all your guns by 2020.....or sooner....mark my words ...

This is a dark and dire prediction.


Do I have a picture that reflects this?
/rummages around uploaded pictures











Ah yes, Waco Texas.

I always thought it was strange that David Koresh was charged with illegally buying firearms, but was not arrested doing that. No. He was sieged while keeping-and-bearing firearms, not buying and selling them.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: XTexan
a reply to: mikegrouchy

I don't see why they would need a lawyer in any of those situations? Though like I said it does vary from state to state. In any case you could always just bring the gun to Texas and do the transfer here, lol.

Ah, the answer to that is Waco Texas.

David Koresh and co. were never caught buying and selling firearms. Not even transferring them. Even though that was the charge against them. They were burned to death for keeping-and-bearing them. And just like in Waco, it doesn't matter if the individual thinks they don't need a lawyer or not. It only matters if the state moves against said individual. Which will require lawyers to counteract.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: XTexan
a reply to: mikegrouchy

I don't see why they would need a lawyer in any of those situations? Though like I said it does vary from state to state. In any case you could always just bring the gun to Texas and do the transfer here, lol.

Ah, the answer to that is Waco Texas.

David Koresh and co. were never caught buying and selling firearms. Not even transferring them. Even though that was the charge against them. They were burned to death for keeping-and-bearing them. And just like in Waco, it doesn't matter if the individual thinks they don't need a lawyer or not. It only matters if the state moves against said individual. Which will require lawyers to counteract.

Mike Grouchy

Agreed, Waco was clusterfrack regardless of how you look at it. I will say though, you won't need the lawyer until after LEO arrives. You won't need one to actually make the transfer.

a reply to: Sremmos80

don't be a quitter....

I have no problem with having a person have to get paperwork to buy a firearm. This should be done at the local level though. This way the local police can tell if someone who might be troublesome is starting to get a little off. The Feds do not need to be involved in this, except maybe they could just make rules governing this. I come from a small area where most cops are good people though, this may not work in areas where there are more corrupt police. Seems that some cops let their job go to their head but most are decent people trying to protect the people. Sure they step on toes and have to avoid arresting the local hierarchy in the area even though they get in trouble. That goes with the job, you usually do not give the mayors kid a ticket. You give the city employees a break when they had a few too much. Now I can go on and on with this, we are talking about of a kind relationships. This world has never been fair, if you think so, you mush be living in fantasy land.

a reply to: XTexan

Texas, for instance, is a community property states. Many are not.

So the SCOTUS put its stamp of approval on powerless laws based purely on semantics?

Further proof America's legal system is a horrible Kafkaesque joke.

I bought a pistol for my wifes birthday. Though she isnt a prohibited person I guess I broke the law.

Maybe my wife is a prohibited person and she happened to use one of my pistols at the range. Uh-oh. I broke the law.

Or did I? Maybe I didnt know she was using the pistol?

But wait, there's more! Private transfers are perfectly legal. So if I buy a pistol from an FFL and decide it isnt my bag how long do I have to wait before I sell it or trade it privately? A month? A year? A decade?

The very law against "strawbuying" is a strawman itself. Completely arbitrary, based on semantics and the punchline is that even it were enforced absolutely 100% of the time it would still do nothing whatsoever to prevent criminal use of a firearm.

So WTF is the point!?!?!