Just heard Dayton shooter may have got his gun from a straw purchase. If true He(The purchaser) should be charged and maybe sentenced to death for the murders.
If true He(The purchaser) should be charged and maybe sentenced to death for the murders.
There are reasonable limits, my friend. That is all.I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. Shall not be infringed. Straw purchase laws are as illegitimate as every other gun law.
There are reasonable limits, my friend. That is all.
Oh boy....be careful with the straw purchase stuff.....
What I'm seeing is that his prohibited (lying about drug use) buddy procured the "body armor" and the drum mag for him so his parents wouldn't find out. The killer got his firearm through an FFL after an online purchase. Heard something in passing about his buddy helping him "mod" the rifle, but who knows. More to the point here, did his drug using buddy know that his Sanders/Warren-loving leftist Antifa-groupie friend was about to go and kill people?
I’m not advising anyone to do it. But I am surprised to see people on a pro 2A site calling for the death penalty for crime based on unconstitutional law.
What I'm seeing is that his prohibited (lying about drug use) buddy procured the "body armor" and the drum mag for him so his parents wouldn't find out. The killer got his firearm through an FFL after an online purchase. Heard something in passing about his buddy helping him "mod" the rifle, but who knows.
I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. Shall not be infringed. Straw purchase laws are as illegitimate as every other gun law. Unless he knew that the intended use was criminal, in which case he is an accomplice. I admittedly did not yet read the article, so if it states something of that nature I retract my disagreement.
I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. Shall not be infringed. Straw purchase laws are as illegitimate as every other gun law.
Who decides what is reasonable? If he conspired to commit murder, there are penalties for that. As a stand alone crime, straw purchase is illegitimate.
My read on the story is they are on him for the illegal drugs question of the 4473. He lied and checked no while using pot, daily, for and extended period of time. And he told the FBI.
I am not aware that giving mags, armor or uppers is illegal. No serialized parts.
.gov needs a live scapegoat, not a corpse to put in jail.
What I heard (on the radio news article) made the guy sound more like an idiot than an accomplice.
And several states and their Congress critters are now suggesting BGCs for parts and vests. Plays right into their narratives, don’t ya think?
(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor, if that person has been convicted of a felony that is—
(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or
(2) an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/931
Like it or not, my guess is that straw purchase is in an entirely different category and north of 90% of people would not agree that straw purchase laws are unconstitutional.
You have a right to your opinion but unless you are on the federal judiciary it doesn't count more or less than any of 340 million opinions in the US.
The facts present in the political arena are what matter. The factors that determine gun control should be the Constitution alone -- buy they are NOT going to be the Constitution alone. Democrat party executive appointed judges, and Democrat legislators are profoundly more likely to support draconian gun control and GOP judges and legislators are profoundly less likely to.
How many court cases, even amicus filings by "no compromise ever" claiming 2A groups begin with the assertion that "all gun control is unconstitutional?
Answer: none, not one.
And the main point on this aspect of this story is the gun control advocates are already spinning using the method(s) of acquisition, in this high profile crime to argue for more gun laws, they are already spinning it, when in fact the method(s) of purchase points to weaknesses and fallacies in their longstanding arguments. This story should hurt their arguments, but with a willing press abetting them, they will win the argument unless a cogent argument is made in response. And that matters.
It's a surprise they didn't get him with possessing ammo as a prohibited persona also.
Body armor is already illegal for a prohibited person