Straw buy = 2 dead and only 2 year sentence

Straw buy = 2 dead and only 2 year sentence

This is a discussion on Straw buy = 2 dead and only 2 year sentence within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Graphic http://video.foxnews.com/v/329145211...=3291452114001...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74
Like Tree127Likes

Thread: Straw buy = 2 dead and only 2 year sentence

  1. #1
    Member Array tag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    164

    Straw buy = 2 dead and only 2 year sentence

    gatorbait51 likes this.
    YOU are the weapon, your firearm is just a tool!


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array CLASS3NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bob from Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    4,862
    The BUYER of the gun should be jailed for Accessory to Murder. The JUDGE should be removed from the Bench.
    Why Waltz when you can Rock-N-Roll

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array NONAME762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    About 235M out of The Palouse WA
    Posts
    8,439
    The judge should be removed from the bench and charged with a crime. Accidents happen everyday in correctional institutions.
    Perhaps the straw purchaser will fall into the garbage grinder. Karma can be a pain in the watoosie.
    I'm just a spoke in the wheel but not a big deal.
    America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe.
    Give me Liberty or give me BACON!!!
    You know that look women give you when they want some sugar? Me neither

  4. #4
    Member Array WilliamDahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    162
    As someone who is a Strict Constitutionalist, I would not have found her guilty of any crime. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that say that we cannot buy firearms for other people. Many of us are old enough to remember a time before that particular unconstitutional regulation was put into effect. At some point, you have to take a stand and I choose to do it at the TOP of the slippery slope instead of somewhere down from there. Is it too difficult to conceive that perhaps the Founding Fathers knew what they were saying and SAID WHAT THEY MEANT when they said, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLASS3NH View Post
    The BUYER of the gun should be jailed for Accessory to Murder. The JUDGE should be removed from the Bench.
    If you loan your neighbor your hammer and he uses it to beat his wife to death, should you be found an accessory to murder? Not in any country that I would want to live in.

    Most problems in life can be solved with sufficient quantities of high explosives -- or penicillin...

    I HATE CENSORSHIP !!!

    More info about me

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array Crescentstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    735
    I have been gone for a while and recently came back here. Starting to wonder why........
    gatorbait51, mano3 and BurgerBoy like this.
    "Clearly that's a YOU problem not a ME problem."

  6. #6
    Ex Member Array Longstreet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamDahl View Post
    As someone who is a Strict Constitutionalist, I would not have found her guilty of any crime. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that say that we cannot buy firearms for other people. Many of us are old enough to remember a time before that particular unconstitutional regulation was put into effect. At some point, you have to take a stand and I choose to do it at the TOP of the slippery slope instead of somewhere down from there. Is it too difficult to conceive that perhaps the Founding Fathers knew what they were saying and SAID WHAT THEY MEANT when they said, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?



    If you loan your neighbor your hammer and he uses it to beat his wife to death, should you be found an accessory to murder? Not in any country that I would want to live in.
    You demonstrate a very poor understanding of The Constitution. The document provides that Congress shall have not only the authority but the duty to regulate the manner in which all such rights are not infringed. Preventing someone from buying a gun for someone who would otherwise not be allowed to have one, by the laws that the Constitution provides for, would be reasonable to ANYONE who should have any access to firearms. Those who whine about their rights being absolutely sacred per the 2nd, those who don't understand that the manner in which the protection provided by the document is to be determined by Congress, subject to the oversight of the judiciary, need to grow up and educate themselves. Your whining is pathetic.

    As for your hammer analogy, the neighbor who loans the hammer has no INTENT to break the law. The woman who goes into a gun shop and fills out a carefully worded Form 4473 certainly does. Your analogy is intellectually lacking. As for not wanting to live in such a country, I have an easy solution for you....GET OUT! There are planes leaving every hour. Get on one.

    This trash belongs in a prison cell for just as long as the mandated sentencing guidelines would allow.

  7. #7
    Member Array Gatling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Downers Grove
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Longstreet View Post
    You demonstrate a very poor understanding of The Constitution. The document provides that Congress shall have not only the authority but the duty to regulate the manner in which all such rights are not infringed. Preventing someone from buying a gun for someone who would otherwise not be allowed to have one, by the laws that the Constitution provides for, would be reasonable to ANYONE who should have any access to firearms. Those who whine about their rights being absolutely sacred per the 2nd, those who don't understand that the manner in which the protection provided by the document is to be determined by Congress, subject to the oversight of the judiciary, need to grow up and educate themselves. Your whining is pathetic.

    As for your hammer analogy, the neighbor who loans the hammer has no INTENT to break the law. The woman who goes into a gun shop and fills out a carefully worded Form 4473 certainly does. Your analogy is intellectually lacking. As for not wanting to live in such a country, I have an easy solution for you....GET OUT! There are planes leaving every hour. Get on one.

    This trash belongs in a prison cell for just as long as the mandated sentencing guidelines would allow.
    Thank you!

  8. #8
    Member Array WilliamDahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Longstreet View Post
    You demonstrate a very poor understanding of The Constitution. The document provides that Congress shall have not only the authority but the duty to regulate the manner in which all such rights are not infringed. Preventing someone from buying a gun for someone who would otherwise not be allowed to have one, by the laws that the Constitution provides for, would be reasonable to ANYONE who should have any access to firearms. Those who whine about their rights being absolutely sacred per the 2nd, those who don't understand that the manner in which the protection provided by the document is to be determined by Congress, subject to the oversight of the judiciary, need to grow up and educate themselves. Your whining is pathetic.

    As for your hammer analogy, the neighbor who loans the hammer has no INTENT to break the law. The woman who goes into a gun shop and fills out a carefully worded Form 4473 certainly does. Your analogy is intellectually lacking. As for not wanting to live in such a country, I have an easy solution for you....GET OUT! There are planes leaving every hour. Get on one.

    This trash belongs in a prison cell for just as long as the mandated sentencing guidelines would allow.
    Well, the 4473 is totally unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned also. Both the NFA of '34 and the GCA of '68 are unconstitutional. A government can no more legally or morally restrict the ownership or carrying of firearms than they can restrict the worship of a particular religion.

    Obviously from your post, you are well down that slippery slope. Apparently you think that just because something is "the law", it makes it "right". Well, that's not the case and sometimes we have to stand up to it and say when it is wrong. Some of us are old enough to remember a time before GCA68. Apparently you are either too young to remember that or you have just grown complacent with having your rights slowly nibbled away by the leftists.

    The only criminal here was the guy who shot the cop. He is solely responsible for his actions and trying to spread the blame does no good.

    I tend to have a rather absolute take on the 2nd Amendment.
    JJVP, Yogi223, Ghost1958 and 3 others like this.

    Most problems in life can be solved with sufficient quantities of high explosives -- or penicillin...

    I HATE CENSORSHIP !!!

    More info about me

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,316
    I hear the read judge coming.
    glockman10mm likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,515
    What CLASS3NH said.
    I shoot with a pistol and a Canon. We must all hang together amigos, or we will all hang separately. NRA life member.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,299
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamDahl View Post
    Well, the 4473 is totally unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned also. Both the NFA of '34 and the GCA of '68 are unconstitutional. A government can no more legally or morally restrict the ownership or carrying of firearms than they can restrict the worship of a particular religion.

    Obviously from your post, you are well down that slippery slope. Apparently you think that just because something is "the law", it makes it "right". Well, that's not the case and sometimes we have to stand up to it and say when it is wrong. Some of us are old enough to remember a time before GCA68. Apparently you are either too young to remember that or you have just grown complacent with having your rights slowly nibbled away by the leftists.

    The only criminal here was the guy who shot the cop. He is solely responsible for his actions and trying to spread the blame does no good.

    I tend to have a rather absolute take on the 2nd Amendment.
    I am all for debate on the limits (or lack thereof) on the 2A, but I don't think this thread is the place for it. That is what the "new topic" button is for.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The BUYER of the gun should be jailed for Accessory to Murder.
    In OK she could have been charged with murder.

    As someone who is a Strict Constitutionalist, I would not have found her guilty of any crime.
    Thankfully for law enforcement officers and society in general; you don't get to decide what is "Constitutional" and what is not. The US courts get to do that. This has nothing to do with the US Constitution. That crazy woman knowingly bought a gun for a violent convicted felon and member of a vicious gang. She is guilty of accessory to murder, at the least. The judge should be thrown off the bench.

    i'm glad law enforcement ended that scumbags life of crime. That particular criminal died in a trash filled ditch beside the highway, how fitting.
    CLASS3NH and cjohnson44546 like this.

  13. #13
    Member Array WilliamDahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    I am all for debate on the limits (or lack thereof) on the 2A, but I don't think this thread is the place for it. That is what the "new topic" button is for.
    Perhaps, but by the very nature of this topic it is about the 2nd Amendment since the OP stated "straw purchase". For those of us who are Strict Constitutionalists, the concept of a "straw purchase" with respect to firearms is an infringement upon our 2nd Amendment rights. I can remember when it was perfectly acceptable for a country club or whatever to have a raffle for a firearm and the winner did not have to go through an FFL holder to get the firearm. The fact that some people think that we should have these straw purchase infringements just shows how much the leftists have slowly nibbled away at our rights to the point where people don't even realize what they've lost.

    Most problems in life can be solved with sufficient quantities of high explosives -- or penicillin...

    I HATE CENSORSHIP !!!

    More info about me

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The bleeding heart judge claimed the prosecution failed to show that the dingbat knew the violent convicted criminal would use the gun to commit violence. Yeah, right.

    Woman Sentenced in Prison's Director Slaying Case - ABC News

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array CLASS3NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bob from Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    4,862
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamDahl View Post
    As someone who is a Strict Constitutionalist, I would not have found her guilty of any crime. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that say that we cannot buy firearms for other people. Many of us are old enough to remember a time before that particular unconstitutional regulation was put into effect. At some point, you have to take a stand and I choose to do it at the TOP of the slippery slope instead of somewhere down from there. Is it too difficult to conceive that perhaps the Founding Fathers knew what they were saying and SAID WHAT THEY MEANT when they said, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?



    If you loan your neighbor your hammer and he uses it to beat his wife to death, should you be found an accessory to murder? Not in any country that I would want to live in.
    This is not about loaning a hammer to somebody and they go and kill another with it, We're talking about going INTO a gunshop, filling out the 4473 form and INTENTIONALLY LYNING on it.
    . It was a STRAW purchase. From a FFL and Federal Law point of view, the BUYER violated Question #1 on the 4473 "Are YOU the actual buyer of the firearm" With this SHE broke a Federal law, making her an accessory to the Crime.
    Soooo... ....If I asked you to buy a gun for me, you'll do it? knowing it's for me whether I can LEGALLY OWN it....(not a Felon/Nutcase, etc etc) AND then hand it over to me? I DON'T think so my friend.
    Sig 210 likes this.
    Why Waltz when you can Rock-N-Roll

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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