Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: CCTAU on June 17, 2014, 09:31:20 AM
-
If you don't think appointments to SCOTUS matter, then read this. Split right down the lines.
This incident was not a straw purchase because both parties were legally allowed to own firearms. But SCOTUS says otherwise. The straw law was "supposed" to be to keep guns out of criminals hands. Now it is used against family members who purchase for each other, even though both were legal.
I guess the moral here is pay cash and don't write Glock on any of the money. This opens a whole can of worms and allows the feds to claim "straw" purchase very easily, even within families.
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html (http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html)
-
The Warden would be in jail many times over from guns being Christmas gifts......Of course DFAX would have already had him there for whippings and the explosives (fireworks) we received.
-
Why should people be able to give guns as gifts? That seems like a difficult way for law enforcement to trace evidence to suspects.
Also, how does this affect inheritances? If my grandaddy had a collectible firearm from World War II in his closet and bequeathed it to me after his death, would that be considered a "straw" purchase?
-
Why should people be able to give guns as gifts? That seems like a difficult way for law enforcement to trace evidence to suspects.
Also, how does this affect inheritances? If my grandaddy had a collectible firearm from World War II in his closet and bequeathed it to me after his death, would that be considered a "straw" purchase?
Why should law enforcement be able to trace guns that I have legally purchased anyway? 9basically gun registration to know who to go to for confiscation) unless I report it stolen, they don't need to know I have it. That is the first issue that needs to be addressed.
This has nothing to do with inheritance, yet. But if your grandpa bought a gun today and didn't like it, but decided to give it to you, how far would the feds have to stretch to call that a straw purchase?
Common sense says that it is not a straw purchase, but do you really think common sense will hold up in court?
You and those like you can sit around and say, "I see no big deal here", but you would be wrong.
The catch in this case was the check. But there is no reason the feds don't just take it a step further each time. I mean they won this one didn't they? Do you and grandpa have enough money to take this to the SCOTUS? The feds do.
Who would have thought that the purchase of a gun between two LEGAL owners would have ended this way?
And once again, where is the gang banger or criminal that we are catching using this? We only enforce this shit against legal owners. The "intent" is for shit.
It's like DFACS. They spend a lot of time a the affluent white man's house while a lot of underprivileged kids go to school abused every day.
You go ahead and trust them to keep you safe with their pseudo enforcement of the straw law. I'll continue to not trust them.
-
Why should people be able to give guns as gifts? That seems like a difficult way for law enforcement to trace evidence to suspects.
Also, how does this affect inheritances? If my grandaddy had a collectible firearm from World War II in his closet and bequeathed it to me after his death, would that be considered a "straw" purchase?
Why shouldnt they?
-
Scanned over it and my quick conclusion is that this is another prime example in which the feds misuse a law, which is precisely the reason we should do everything in our power to take laws off the books and mostly prevent new ones.
A legal sale/transfer between two law abiding citizens should not be a crime in this country.