Good thing handcuffs are adjustable for all size of wrists. I would think a pompous ass like Mark Kelly thinks that cuffs won't fit him. Guess what Mark, you will look really cool with bracelets on.
Nothing gonna happen over this, just like with the 30 rd mags on TV. Oh, and don't forget that gun thing with Holder in Mexico. Hell, nobody even remembers that one.
The poster at the link is incorrect. It is perfectly legal to purchase a firearm with the intent of giving it to another person. Have you ever bought a gun as a gift for someone else? The key deciding factor to it being a straw purchase is did you purchase the gun with your own money, or did you purchase it with funds provided by the third party, or with the expectation to be reimbursed by a third party. The first is perfectly legal as long as you have no reason to believe that they are a prohibited person. the latter two are straw purchases.
So, Mark Kelly, while a giant douche, did not break the law.
I mentioned this in my piece, but in relation to the USA Today report that he intended to sell it across state lines--if he were going to gift it to the police, which I don't believe for a second, I don't believe it would be a straw purchase, as the explanation for sec. 11.a. says: "However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer 'YES' to question 11.a."
Elliott is correct. This is not a straw purchase. He is correct in his entire statement. Stop with the misinformation, please, folks. Leave that up to the Left. So, yes, Paul X, he is safe. He should be. No law has been broken. I have been a firearms dealer for over 30 years.But I don't think there is really any confusion as to how this law is interpretated. Just saying. Still Red in Blue CO
7 comments:
Good thing handcuffs are adjustable for all size of wrists. I would think a pompous ass like Mark Kelly thinks that cuffs won't fit him. Guess what Mark, you will look really cool with bracelets on.
He's safe. Member of the ruling class...
If he did, nail that son of a bitch to the wall, he would do this to any and all fellow Americans, if he hadn't fucked up!
Nothing gonna happen over this, just like with the 30 rd mags on TV.
Oh, and don't forget that gun thing with Holder in Mexico. Hell, nobody even remembers that one.
The poster at the link is incorrect. It is perfectly legal to purchase a firearm with the intent of giving it to another person. Have you ever bought a gun as a gift for someone else? The key deciding factor to it being a straw purchase is did you purchase the gun with your own money, or did you purchase it with funds provided by the third party, or with the expectation to be reimbursed by a third party. The first is perfectly legal as long as you have no reason to believe that they are a prohibited person. the latter two are straw purchases.
So, Mark Kelly, while a giant douche, did not break the law.
I mentioned this in my piece, but in relation to the USA Today report that he intended to sell it across state lines--if he were going to gift it to the police, which I don't believe for a second, I don't believe it would be a straw purchase, as the explanation for sec. 11.a. says: "However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer 'YES' to question 11.a."
Elliott is correct. This is not a straw purchase. He is correct in his entire statement.
Stop with the misinformation, please, folks. Leave that up to the Left. So, yes, Paul X, he is safe. He should be. No law has been broken.
I have been a firearms dealer for over 30 years.But I don't think there is really any confusion as to how this law is interpretated.
Just saying.
Still Red in Blue CO
Post a Comment