Straw purchase or not?

[SevenMilePete]

No it would not. Again, "straw purchase" doesn't exist. It's a made up political term. We'd be better to stop using it.

If the purchase/transfer didn't violate any Federal or State laws, then it's clean.
If the girlfriend has a LTCF, she is free to possess or even carry it alone.

Then what crime was this woman convicted for?



http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...-purchase-law/

[BimmerJon]

Then what crime was this woman convicted for?



http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...-purchase-law/

Same crime as before just with a 5 year minimum for repeat offenses

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...hoice=suppress

[Hawk]

Then what crime was this woman convicted for?



http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...-purchase-law/

"22-year-old Staci Dawson of Chester, who purchased a 40 caliber and a nine millimeter handgun for her convicted felon ex-boyfriend, was found guilty of illegally transferring firearms."

[Hamltnblue]

I agree with the LTCF. Asking her to get one knocks out 2 birds with one stone.
1. You can let her use any gun you own without worry.
2. You can innocently find out now if she has any skeletons in the closet.

[tl_3237]

Then what crime was this woman convicted for?



http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...-purchase-law/

2 counts each violating Title 18 Pa CS - Illegal private transfer of handgun (§6111(c)), Criminal conspiracy (§903), False Report to LE Authorities (§4906).

On the charge for "makes any materially false oral statement" in connection with the purchase, delivery or transfer of a firearm (§6111(g)(4)(i)) she was found not guilty.

The 2nd count under 6111(c) got her the Brad Fox 5 years.

So she wasn't found guilty of making a "straw purchase", more correctly making a material false oral or written statement to an FFL (as BimmerJon points out). She was found guilty of transferring those recently purchased handguns to her boyfriend without the use of an FFL.

[SevenMilePete]

2 counts each violating Title 18 Pa CS - Illegal private transfer of handgun (§6111(c)), Criminal conspiracy (§903), False Report to LE Authorities (§4906).

On the charge for "makes any materially false oral statement" in connection with the purchase, delivery or transfer of a firearm (§6111(g)(4)(i)) she was found not guilty.

The 2nd count under 6111(c) got her the Brad Fox 5 years.

So she wasn't found guilty of making a "straw purchase", more correctly making a material false oral or written statement to an FFL (as BimmerJon points out). She was found guilty of transferring those recently purchased handguns to her boyfriend without the use of an FFL.

A rose by any other name............. Just another name for the same offense. Just because it is not defined as a straw purchase in the laws, doesn't mean it can't be called that colloquially. IMHO

[ungawa]

If I had a friend (or a GF) that was curious about guns but didn't like to shoot the ones I had I might consider buying a gun they would like to shoot. I've bought extremely expensive gun parts to make my guns more shootable to the average range guest with no benefit to me.

[BimmerJon]

A rose by any other name............. Just another name for the same offense. Just because it is not defined as a straw purchase in the laws, doesn't mean it can't be called that colloquially. IMHO

The large majority here will disagree I imagine.
We are a community that strives in fact and statute not opinion and made up words. That's a tactic for the left to confuse people (and themselves) to pass infringing laws based on fear tactics, confusion and lies.

I'll continue to do best to cite legal, mechanical and statistical facts but feel free to instead use descriptions like "the thing that goes up". Laws are literally passed on this shit

http://youtu.be/ospNRk2uM3U

[tl_3237]

A rose by any other name............. Just another name for the same offense. Just because it is not defined as a straw purchase in the laws, doesn't mean it can't be called that colloquially. IMHO

You asked what she was convicted of and, having gotten the answer from some research on my part, you want to argue that she was convicted of "straw purchase"?!? --(you're welcome).

Even using your colloquialism, I repeat that she was found NOT GUILTY of what one would loosely refer to as the Commonwealth's "straw purchase" statute - 18 Pa CS 6111(g)(4).

She was found guilty of the subsequent transfer of handguns to her boyfriend in contravention of 18 Pa CS 6111(c) which has nothing to do with "straw purchases" or the fact that he was a prohibited person -- the very same violation for anyone, not within the familial relationship exclusions, transferring any handgun to any other person in the Commonwealth without the services of an FFL/sheriff.

[Remington788]

Sorry, I am with Pete (in the minority I guess). I'm not a lawyer, armchair or otherwise but I know what a straw purchase is. Start citing law book section numbers and you lose me. There is also no crime called "Rolling Stop" but we all know what that means too.

Of course, I also don't get my panties in a bunch if someone refers to their LTCF as a Permit, or if they call the bullet holding thing in their gun as a Clip rather than a Magazine.

There just seem to be more important things to worry about in life.