Posted on Jun 25, 2014
Supreme court rules in favor of Anti-Gunners! Are ye for or agin?
7.51K
86
56
2
2
0
Another strike against law abiding gun owners, what is your opinion?
2nd Amendment
Bill of Rights
Supreme Court
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
4
4
0
I am not sure about all states, but in TX and TN straw purchases were already illegal. I do not support any further gun laws when we fail to enforce the ones we already have.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
PO3 John Jeter
The key element of the case is where the purchaser indicated on the transfer form that he was purchasing the gun for himself. Add to that the personal check received prior to the purchase with the notation of the make and model of the weapon and you have a clear violation of the law (right or wrong). I don't know what specifically he was charged and convicted of, but that could include conspiracy to violate the law (agreeing with his uncle to purchase the weapon for him), and Perjury (for falsely stating he was purchasing the weapon for himself). I'm still unclear how the govt. became aware of the situation to begin with.......
(0)
(0)
PO3 John Jeter
I agree it is not a constitutional restriction as it does not prevent the ownership of a firearm. To some small extent, I resent the man stirring up this huge controversy by just trying to save a few bucks for his uncle. Now he is a convicted felon and cannot own a weapon period. Also he has a what I figure must be a huge legal bill. As far as the law being reasonable, you have to take into account what caused this law to be enacted in the first place. I will agree that the law was badly interpreted in this instance, but for the life of me I cannot suggest an alternative wording that some bottom feeding lawyer could not get around........"Catch 22" lives on!
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
PO3 Jeter, I read the Supreme Court Opinion and it stated the facts of the case. What happened was while they were executing a search warrant on his residence for an unrelated crime, they came across the receipt and the check and built a case around that.
No matter the law if a prosecutor wants to screw you they will find something to nail you with even if it's unrelated to the original crime.
No matter the law if a prosecutor wants to screw you they will find something to nail you with even if it's unrelated to the original crime.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
MAJ Carl Ballinger, this looks like one of those laws that is on the books to screw a person if the Prosecutor can't really nail you with anything else. Had the uncle not written Glock on the check in the memo line, and had the nephew simply filed paperwork to transfer the pistol ownership there wouldn't have been a case. Sort of like the UCMJ Article 134 General Article which gives a commander discretion to prosecute someone for something that isn't explicitly in the UCMJ.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No matter what, it still states that people can bear arms in the duties of, or to form, a well regulated militia. The Guard and Reserve forces aren't militia. They are government regulated armed forces. Being part of, or forming a militia requires the ability to bear arms, thus the people's ability to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can't form or participate in a militia if you don't have "arms". No matter how people interpret it, this is what it was for.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
Sgt Fisher it is a slow erroding of the people's rights. I am sure you are familiar with the big UN backed gun confiscation. if you read those documents you will see they were written back in the early 1960s. so they have been working toward this goal for 40 years in America & making traction each year.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
Arms does not mean explicitly it has to be a fire arm... it could be swords or daggers or quarter staves and the militia itself could own the arms for the militia not the individuals bringing them to the party.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google