Personal transfer of firearms

Quote:

---

Immediate Family members is one thing,but if you fill out the 4473 to buy a gun knowing that you will be giving it to a "Close Friend" then you have lied on the 4473 and committed a STRAW PURCHASE.Back when the FN 5.7 was all the rage, down here they had a lady that bought 10 in a short period of time,when the ATF showed up requesting to see the guns, she couldn't produce one nor did she know where they went.

---

Not exactly.

The Sheriffs Reserve bought the outgoing Sheriff (retired) a Glock 17 with his badge(Sheriffs 5 pointed star) engraved on it. It was explained to us by the local ATF examiner that since it was a gift, and since the Sherrif was known to us, that it was a legal transaction.

A "gift" is not a straw purchase. A straw purchase is buying a gun with the intent to resale to another indvidual, or buying one for an individual, them giving you the money to purchase it.

The question asks: Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearms(s) listed? And then in bold (Warning,you are not the actual buyer if you are aquiring the firearm on behalf of another person. IF you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

I just had this explained to me as I went through an ATF NFA Audit last week by the Examiner. You are the buyer. You own it. You give it as a gift to a non-prohibited person. You are good. Of course that was my Examiner. An anti-gun one in New England might thinkj different.

The lady buying 10 of them for resale would have been engaged in the buisness without a liscense...something that the ATF takes a very dim view of. She bought them with intent to resale.If she could have shown that she gave them away as gifts, she would have been OK.

This "gift" thing is much mistunderstood by most people. People are so "gun shy" these days its no wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aus71383

My answer is:

I will support nothing legislatively, because the "2a" is enough already. Everything else is an infringement. Existing laws on the books are not "in line" with the 2nd Amendment.

To your loaded question about criminals - I would rather they be armed. It is their right. Even a criminal is a person, and although they may use weapons to commit crimes, it is also possible that they use them in legitimate self defense.

I hate this crap.

Austin

---

Sorry, but not sure how the question is loaded unless by saying "a criminal having a gun" implies criminal intent. Well, in that case that is exactly what I meant by the use of the term "criminal" so sorry if I wasn't more direct. Felons sacrifice all types of rights (voting is an example) and there are 100's of years of constitutional precedent to support this. My question has evoked a much wider range of responses (and of a very different sort) than I had imagined. This has been very educational for me. Maybe our definition of the word "criminal" needs to be better defined. So let's get to brass tacks. When a man like William Spengler bludgeons his grandmother to death and serves (I can't believe it) only 17 years in prison, is this the type of criminal who should be afforded the rights of the 2nd Amendment? (I hope there is nothing "loaded" about that question.)

Quote:

---

When a man like William Spengler bludgeons his grandmother to death and serves (I can't believe it) only 17 years in prison, is this the type of criminal who should be afforded the rights of the 2nd Amendment? (I hope there is nothing "loaded" about that question.)

---

When a man like William Spengler bludgeons his grandmother to death...he is still here on Earth why exactly?

We shouldnt have to worry about his rights.


Dead men need no rights.



A more revelant question is why wasn' he put to death?

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. I did have an earlier comment to make but somehow my access to the site became problematic. Maybe I need a new computer but in any case I will not be commenting on this thread further.

Quote:

---

When a man like William Spengler bludgeons his grandmother to death and serves (I can't believe it) only 17 years in prison, is this the type of criminal who should be afforded the rights of the 2nd Amendment?

---

No. He should have been executed after a speedy trial. Problem solved.

kori I'm putting this nicely because I have read and reread your original question and I don't think you are neccesarily selling out our collective 2a right but your train of thought is a VERY slippery one with me and alot of others around here. WE have given up too much already, THEY want it all...WE can give up nothing further. I would suggest you cease with such questions around here as they are REALLY unpopular. I say this again with as much of a courtious tone as I can convey in text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock and Glock

No. He should have been executed after a speedy trial. Problem solved.

---

Amen to this!!!

Not that I take law enforcement word for much , but it appears this is a bit different case. She bought those weapons for him knowing he was a felon .
That is not the same as if I have a weapon I have owned and sell it to a friend.
It is against the law for me to go buy a weapon and give it as a gift if you follow the letter of the law. Because it ask if your buying the weapon for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldVet

It is a straw purchase if the person you buy the firearm "for" is unable to legally purchase or possess the firearm.

---

Thank you for bringing that clarifying point to the front. You just helped me understand things a lot better.

I don't think we need more laws, but more common sense. I would never sell any of my guns to someone I know can't possess it legally, like the woman who bought it for the killer of the firefighters. I, personally, would only sell it to someone I know is a person of good moral character, or to someone who has a permit to purchase/carry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KoriBustard

Would you prefer to see criminals have unfettered access to firearms so that no aspect of your 2a rights are abridged, or would you be willing to take some logical steps (not necessarily the one I asked about) to keep arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens yet reduce access by criminals? Or, would any measure to do so be perceived by you as an "infringement?

Sorry, but not sure how the question is loaded unless by saying "a criminal having a gun" implies criminal intent. Well, in that case that is exactly what I meant by the use of the term "criminal" so sorry if I wasn't more direct. Felons sacrifice all types of rights (voting is an example) and there are 100's of years of constitutional precedent to support this. My question has evoked a much wider range of responses (and of a very different sort) than I had imagined. This has been very educational for me. Maybe our definition of the word "criminal" needs to be better defined.

So let's get to brass tacks. When a man like William Spengler bludgeons his grandmother to death and serves (I can't believe it) only 17 years in prison, is this the type of criminal who should be afforded the rights of the 2nd Amendment? (I hope there is nothing "loaded" about that question.)

Would you prefer to see criminals have unfettered access to firearms so that no aspect of your 2a rights are abridged, or would you be willing to take some logical steps (not necessarily the one I asked about) to keep arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens yet reduce access by criminals? Or, would any measure to do so be perceived by you as an "infringement?

---

For the brass tacks bit - I think (my opinion) that once a criminal has served their time, they should be normal citizens again. If they are a serial killer and get out in 5 years, there is something wrong with the justice/prison system. But if a person commits a crime, realizes their folly, and wants to be a productive/contributing member of our society, I don't think it's right to handicap them and stigmatize them for having previously committed crimes. Initial sentences might need some work for this to be functional. I don't see it happening - but this is my idealized version of justice.

Your "loaded" question wasn't loaded on the criminal side, but on the "logical steps" side. There is no such thing as a logical step. It's called a slippery slope. If the choice is:
A - Prefer to see criminals have unfettered access to firearms so that no aspect of my 2a rights are abridged (infringed)
or
B - Be willing to take some logical steps to keep arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens yet reduce access by criminals

I choose B, every time.

It is a trick question - set up to make someone choose option A. It's blatantly obvious, and it's insulting to the idea of discussion and input. If you want to say "I think we should take logical steps to reduce access to firearms by criminals" then just say it. Making it an Either Or type choice is spurious.

Would you rather:
A - Criminals have weapons, and the government sets rules on what weapons are/aren't legal, and all weapons that aren't legal are a felony to possess, and they mandate a waiting period/background check, as well as individual state governments making additional laws regarding waiting periods, the legality of a person being able to carry a weapon for self defense or any other purpose whether concealed or not, whether or not person can own certain types of firearms that are regulated at the federal level, and whether or not a militia can be formed in each individual state
or
B - A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I choose B again.

Typically I don't pick apart quotes and post lengthy responses to this type of thing. This one irked me though. It is a slippery slope. We are already halfway down it.

Austin

I will not volunteer to give up all or part of any of my Rights. If someone thinks they have the right or authority to take my Rights from me, then they are enemies of the Constitution of the United States. If these enemies believe they have the right to force me to relinquish my Rights, then they should be prepared for me to resist their attacks. They should know that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. The enemies of the Constitution of the United States should be aware that I do not stand alone. I stand united with all the other protectors of Freedom. If there ever comes a time when one of our protectors is no longer able to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, there will always be another hero who will rise up and become the next protector of Freedom.

In the Kalifornia state of the south you by law have to receive a pistol permit from the buyer for any pistol sold through private sales if they don't have a North Carolina CHL.

My answer to your question is see my below signatures ↓↓↓↓

Thanks Hotguns for clearing up my inaccuracies dealing with Gifting Firearms,I guess what it comes down to is making sure that whomever you do gift a firearm too is not a prohibited person.
I have sold several Guns thru Private sales,but if I even think by the way the guy is acting or behaving is hinky then it's not going to happen unless we go thru a dealer.
Years ago a friend that had an FFL license sold a gun IIRC without doing the customary 72 hour wait in KS.The guy then went home and committed suicide,the family sued and my buddy got in a legal nightmare lost his FFL License and closed his business AFAIK the Insurance Company settled the claim.There are many ways that people can commit suicide,nobody sues a rope company,or gas station when the die from running a car in a closed garage etc.but when they use a firearm they try to villainize the seller