How does an investigator know who is making a "straw purchase" ?

kevin1 · 08-01-2006, 08:58 AM

What determines a straw purchase ?

Two Georgia gun dealers have recently settled a lawsuit brought against them by the city of New York which resulted when investigators tracked the purchases of guns used in crimes in that city . Investigators attemted to make "straw purchases" where one person buys a firearm for another illegally , but how would an investigator make such a determination ? How is a gunshop supposed to know who is making such purchases and who isn't during the transaction ? If the buyer successfully provides ID and passes the background check then what decides if it was a "straw purchase" ? Legally you don't need to see ID to resell a legally purchased gun to a private individual , so how would you know whether they could legally own that gun or not ?

Strange Biller · 08-01-2006, 12:27 PM

You're wrong on this point:

Quote:

Legally you don't need to see ID to resell a legally purchased gun to a private individual , so how would you know whether they could legally own that gun or not ?

In some states, even a private sale of a used gun requires an firearms license - I believe NY (at least NYC) is one such place.

As to what constitutes a "straw purchase" I can't say. Unless there were two people in the shop and Customer A handles the weapon, inspects it, says, "We'll take it" and Customer B is the one that actually buys it, I can't see how that would be a proveable offense (unless the undercover cops were just saying, "Yeah, I'm buyin' this here pistol for my friend, the convicted felon").

Mudder · 08-01-2006, 12:58 PM

???!!!! Sounds like the mayor and a few others are trying to make other states go by their rules. I reckon if it is good enuff for NY,LA and a few others then it should be alright for us??
I can see cracking down on illegal gun sales. But having to go out of state to do it? Surely there are more instances happening there than in other places.Is Georgia the illegal gun capital of the U.S. now??

Whitehorse · 08-02-2006, 12:51 AM

Bloomberg & his ilk are just about getting rid of the second amendment. Getting rid of that civil right makes it easier to go after those other "pesky" civil rights that bother statists like Bloomberg. Yes he's a republican, but he's a statist who changed from democrat to republican to follow Guiliani into the mayorship of NY.

CalHunter · 08-02-2006, 03:08 AM

I hope Bob Barr wins his lawsuit.

Strange Biller · 08-02-2006, 09:54 AM

Not that I am saying this is the case (because I don't know - none of us knows right now) but if the dealers in GA are knowingly selling guns to people who shouldn't be buying them, why shouldn't they be prosecuted? If it was crack cocaine they were having a problem with in NYC, nobody would find it odd that they decided to track it to it's source - same with illegal gun purchases.

kevin1 · 08-02-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Strange Biller

Not that I am saying this is the case (because I don't know - none of us knows right now) but if the dealers in GA are knowingly selling guns to people who shouldn't be buying them, why shouldn't they be prosecuted?Â* If it was crack cocaine they were having a problem with in NYC, nobody would find it odd that they decided to track it to it's source - same with illegal gun purchases.

Your question , and the City of New York's case , is based on the supposition that the dealer knew or suspected a straw purchase . If I personally walk into a gunshop right now I can present a valid ID , know that I'll pass the background check , and I could walk right out to the car and sell it to a convicted felon without the shop owner ever knowing about it . Why would the gun dealer be at fault in that scenario since I successfully navigated the checks and balances ?

It seems to me that the plaintiff in the NY case would have to prove conspiracy and/or racketeering to make their case , and I just don't see how that would be possible unless somebody snitched . If somebody did snitch then BATF would have to become involved and the gun dealer couldn't cop a plea or make a settlement . I don't recall BATF even being mentioned , and they certainly would be since a federal gun law violation would be involved . On the surface it would appear that Bloomberg is simply extorting the dealers into complying with a settlement or face financial ruin from a lengthy trial , the same way some cities tried to destroy the firearms industry before the legislation to protect them from frivilous "defective product" lawsuits was enacted recently . If the guns were purchased by a person with the legal right to buy them there's no way the gun dealer is responsible for their final disposition regardless of whom the buyer resold them to .

Strange Biller · 08-02-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: kevin1

If the guns were purchased by a person with the legal right to buy them there's no way the gun dealer is responsible for their final disposition regardless of whom the buyer resold them to .

My point is that it is impossible to tell from this article whether or not the gun dealers had knowledge of what was happening. If the gun dealers were knowingly selling guns to a people they knew weren't the real buyers, they were breaking the law and I don't weep for them at all, especially since it is ****bags like that giving responsible gun owners a bad name. What about the scenarios I presented in my first post? They seem perfectly logical to me as a sting operation.

kevin1 · 08-02-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

As to what constitutes a "straw purchase" I can't say. Unless there were two people in the shop and Customer A handles the weapon, inspects it, says, "We'll take it" and Customer B is the one that actually buys it, I can't see how that would be a proveable offense (unless the undercover cops were just saying, "Yeah, I'm buyin' this here pistol for my friend, the convicted felon").

In such an obvious scenario the dealer would undoubtedly know or suspect a straw purchase , which I suspect may have been the case since multiple dealers refused the transaction , and I wouldn't sympathize with those who went along either . I don't have enough detail to say anything conclusively either way , but it sounds suspiciously like extortion on Hizzoner's part to me . The out of state "sting" alone raises red flags since it would become a federal matter once the guns crossed the state line .

Strange Biller · 08-02-2006, 12:16 PM

I just don't understand why you think this sounds like extortion or something underhanded - they didn't go after the vast majority of the dealers they visited, which says tome they were out to get only those dealers that were actually sellingwhen they knew they shouldn't.

I guess I'm not as quick to dislike this kind of operation because in my area that is how the majority of thebad guys get their guns.At least once a year the Globe will run an article on it and people I knowwho live in some of the sketchy areas of town tell me that itis common knowledge that if you don't have a criminal record and you take a vacationanywhere in theSouth, you buy a coupleof handguns to bringback and pay for your vacation. It'sjust a fact of life in some of these neighborhoods that this is what you do if you don't have a record.