Possible Straw Man Purchase Prevented

Biggfoot44 · Sep 9, 2019

Believing that Free Men should be able to own guns in the large sense, does not negate using caution with sketchy individuals in the particular .

grimnar15 · Sep 9, 2019

Biggfoot44 said:
Believing that Free Men should be able to own guns in the large sense, does not negate using caution with sketchy individuals in the particular .

For sure, MD is leaning towards stronger gun control, maybe I am just more worried than I should be.

grimnar15 · Sep 10, 2019

IMBLITZVT said:
I did not read all the pages but back to OP.

Why would a random guy pretend to be the buyer? Why not just have the other guy be the buyer if it was a FTF? Did he have a "I am a felon" tatoo? Does not seem to make sense to me. The whole point of a Straw purchase is to have the legal person buy it for another FOR the back ground check. In this case, it would not seem to make any sense. If he was buying for someone else, why bring him? Why the fake purchaser on a FTF... does not seem to make sense but then again I was not there.

However I often go with people to look over a gun and tell them I approve the gun they are about to buy. Usually its pretty clear I am there for advice... but I could see how this could be mistaken.

A few more questions might have really gotten a clear answer. If he says, "I am good with it" and you snatch the rifle back and jet off... I can see him being a bit pissed. I mean he might have just driven an hour or more and wasted a friends time to have you ride off before getting more info... Now it might be just as you said, but to play Devil's advocate just based off what you posted, it sounds like you might have just been jumping the gun. After all how many straw purchases are there of ARs... mostly always handguns.

It is entirely possible that I jumped the gun and after reading counter arguments to my decision to walk away I can see their point. I will say that the whole experience did not seem right from the start and replaying the whole exchange in my mind, I still feel good about my decision.

fabsroman · Sep 10, 2019

rbird7282 said:
This is rich coming from someone who has said he’s ok with UBC’s on multiple occasions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I am still indifferent toward them. I think a lot of people on this board are too. I mean heck, the OP did his own gut check UBC and there are plenty of people that are fine with that, that vehemently oppose UBC at an FFL. Again, the irony is thick.

Either we have UBC with valid records or we just let every free man carry a gun, period. That is where I stand on it. Not this BS where we pretend we do not want criminals and mentally ill people to have guns, but then a FTF on a gut check is fine and dandy. Crap or get off the pot.

Either backgrounds checks work to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill, or they do not. If they do, then everybody goes through it. If they do not, then lock up the criminals that cannot be trusted with a firearm and the mentally ill.

Both sides SUCK at this pathetic argument.

Here some are applauding the OP for his gut check, which very well might have kept a firearm out of a law abiding citizens hands. Have to wonder if they guy went to an FFL if he would have been able to buy the gun without having his chain yanked.

Yep, I am for firearms for all free men. No background checks required unless you are in a mental institution or prison. Oh yeah, probably should not have firearms while in a mental institution or prison.

So, either you take the position that firearms are for all free people, or you take the position that a UBC needs to be done on every firearm purchase, versus a gut check. I am actually laughing a little. We are depending on the OP's gut check, to keep a firearm out of the hands of a criminal or a mentally ill person. Alrighty then.

Personally, I think all violent criminals should be locked up until they can be handed a firearm and ammo in front of the parole board and all mentally ill people should be in institutions. Anybody outside of those institutions should have all their rights restored immediately upon leaving. No UBC needed whatsoever. No background check needed whatsoever. We certainly would not be relying on gut checks. Not sure most firearms owners would make the correct "gut check" in the first place.

Think I just read on here today that Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control laws, yet murders are out of control. So, if they walk among us, we must trust them, because gun control, even OP administered gun control, is not going to work. Not in favor of UBC, then you should not be in favor of the current NICS system or the gut check system.

How many in this thread are against UBC, but all for what the OP did?

grimnar15 · Sep 10, 2019

fabsroman said:
Yeah, I am still indifferent toward them. I think a lot of people on this board are too. I mean heck, the OP did his own gut check UBC and there are plenty of people that are fine with that, that vehemently oppose UBC at an FFL. Again, the irony is thick.

Either we have UBC with valid records or we just let every free man carry a gun, period. That is where I stand on it. Not this BS where we pretend we do not want criminals and mentally ill people to have guns, but then a FTF on a gut check is fine and dandy. Crap or get off the pot.

Either backgrounds checks work to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill, or they do not. If they do, then everybody goes through it. If they do not, then lock up the criminals that cannot be trusted with a firearm and the mentally ill.

Both sides SUCK at this pathetic argument.

Here some are applauding the OP for his gut check, which very well might have kept a firearm out of a law abiding citizens hands. Have to wonder if they guy went to an FFL if he would have been able to buy the gun without having his chain yanked.

Yep, I am for firearms for all free men. No background checks required unless you are in a mental institution or prison. Oh yeah, probably should not have firearms while in a mental institution or prison.

So, either you take the position that firearms are for all free people, or you take the position that a UBC needs to be done on every firearm purchase, versus a gut check. I am actually laughing a little. We are depending on the OP's gut check, to keep a firearm out of the hands of a criminal or a mentally ill person. Alrighty then.

Personally, I think all violent criminals should be locked up until they can be handed a firearm and ammo in front of the parole board and all mentally ill people should be in institutions. Anybody outside of those institutions should have all their rights restored immediately upon leaving. No UBC needed whatsoever. No background check needed whatsoever. We certainly would not be relying on gut checks. Not sure most firearms owners would make the correct "gut check" in the first place.

Think I just read on here today that Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control laws, yet murders are out of control. So, if they walk among us, we must trust them, because gun control, even OP administered gun control, is not going to work. Not in favor of UBC, then you should not be in favor of the current NICS system or the gut check system.

How many in this thread are against UBC, but all for what the OP did?

I don’t think there is a prefect answer, and I never intended to insinuate I was right in my decision. It’s hard to explain, but something was wrong about the whole transaction. Maybe I was wrong and judged a book by its cover, maybe I was right.... Besides a handful of nonconstructive criticisms, most MDS folks on here have made really good arguments for and against my decision and they really made me think. Bottom line, I made a decision based on the situation and I am at peace with it.

OLM-Medic · Sep 10, 2019

I went with a friend to buy a gun FTF once because he didn't know much about guns.

Still, Armslist is sketchy. A lot of stuff on there is probably feds baiting people too, considering the sketchy things I've seen on there.

traveller · Sep 10, 2019

grimnar15 said:
It is entirely possible that I jumped the gun and after reading counter arguments to my decision to walk away I can see their point. I will say that the whole experience did not seem right from the start and replaying the whole exchange in my mind, I still feel good about my decision.

The reaction after you stepped back from the sale is what tells me that they were probably not on the up&up. Now, as you presumably didn't run a NICS check on the guy you were going to sell to, it wasn't really a 'straw man' scenario. Either of these guys could have been the buyer as far as you were concerned.

As for the 'knowledgeable friend' scenario. Sure, could be, but why didn't he introduce him as such. 'This is my friend Bob, he knows more about ARs than I do, you don't mind if he takes a look ?'

Stoveman · Sep 10, 2019

fabsroman said:
Yeah, I am still indifferent toward them. I think a lot of people on this board are too. I mean heck, the OP did his own gut check UBC and there are plenty of people that are fine with that, that vehemently oppose UBC at an FFL. Again, the irony is thick.

Either we have UBC with valid records or we just let every free man carry a gun, period. That is where I stand on it. Not this BS where we pretend we do not want criminals and mentally ill people to have guns, but then a FTF on a gut check is fine and dandy. Crap or get off the pot.

Either backgrounds checks work to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill, or they do not. If they do, then everybody goes through it. If they do not, then lock up the criminals that cannot be trusted with a firearm and the mentally ill.

Both sides SUCK at this pathetic argument.

Here some are applauding the OP for his gut check, which very well might have kept a firearm out of a law abiding citizens hands. Have to wonder if they guy went to an FFL if he would have been able to buy the gun without having his chain yanked.

Yep, I am for firearms for all free men. No background checks required unless you are in a mental institution or prison. Oh yeah, probably should not have firearms while in a mental institution or prison.

So, either you take the position that firearms are for all free people, or you take the position that a UBC needs to be done on every firearm purchase, versus a gut check. I am actually laughing a little. We are depending on the OP's gut check, to keep a firearm out of the hands of a criminal or a mentally ill person. Alrighty then.

Personally, I think all violent criminals should be locked up until they can be handed a firearm and ammo in front of the parole board and all mentally ill people should be in institutions. Anybody outside of those institutions should have all their rights restored immediately upon leaving. No UBC needed whatsoever. No background check needed whatsoever. We certainly would not be relying on gut checks. Not sure most firearms owners would make the correct "gut check" in the first place.

Think I just read on here today that Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control laws, yet murders are out of control. So, if they walk among us, we must trust them, because gun control, even OP administered gun control, is not going to work. Not in favor of UBC, then you should not be in favor of the current NICS system or the gut check system.

How many in this thread are against UBC, but all for what the OP did?

No, they really don't suck at their arguments.

My side opposes UBC because they don't stop mass killers and .gov shouldn't know that my shotgun now belongs to you. Period. Full stop.

Their side pushes UBCs as a preventative measure to stop the mentally ill from obtaining firearms because they can't say out loud (yet) that this is a way to register more firearms to make it easier to locate and eventually confiscate.

There, now pick a side.

Hi-Torque · Sep 10, 2019

grimnar15 said:
.... I will say that the whole experience did not seem right from the start and replaying the whole exchange in my mind, I still feel good about my decision.

As the seller, that's all that matters. If the guy is legally allowed to buy an AR, he can go buy another one. You didn't change his status from being able to buy one. Your decision might have cost him a few hours and some gas money, but as the buyer from something off of armlist, he is also taking a risk the deal won't go through. I've driven hours to meet sellers on Armslist, only to have them stop answering their phones and never show up. At least you showed up & gave them a chance.

Then they kicked your car. That's not the type of person i'd be comfortable selling an AR to either. I think the people here who would get mad if they were the buyer in this situation, wouldn't have acted like the buyer, and wouldn't have created a scenario that made the seller feel uncomfortable.

You don't have to sell something to someone, just because they can legally own it. It's not really an issue of whether or not the person was prohibited. You didn't think the scene was right, so go home, it's your AR, your rules.

1time · Sep 10, 2019

fabsroman said:
Yeah, I am still indifferent toward them. I think a lot of people on this board are too. I mean heck, the OP did his own gut check UBC and there are plenty of people that are fine with that, that vehemently oppose UBC at an FFL. Again, the irony is thick.

Either we have UBC with valid records or we just let every free man carry a gun, period. That is where I stand on it. Not this BS where we pretend we do not want criminals and mentally ill people to have guns, but then a FTF on a gut check is fine and dandy. Crap or get off the pot.

Either backgrounds checks work to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill, or they do not. If they do, then everybody goes through it. If they do not, then lock up the criminals that cannot be trusted with a firearm and the mentally ill.

Both sides SUCK at this pathetic argument.

Here some are applauding the OP for his gut check, which very well might have kept a firearm out of a law abiding citizens hands. Have to wonder if they guy went to an FFL if he would have been able to buy the gun without having his chain yanked.

Yep, I am for firearms for all free men. No background checks required unless you are in a mental institution or prison. Oh yeah, probably should not have firearms while in a mental institution or prison.

So, either you take the position that firearms are for all free people, or you take the position that a UBC needs to be done on every firearm purchase, versus a gut check. I am actually laughing a little. We are depending on the OP's gut check, to keep a firearm out of the hands of a criminal or a mentally ill person. Alrighty then.

Personally, I think all violent criminals should be locked up until they can be handed a firearm and ammo in front of the parole board and all mentally ill people should be in institutions. Anybody outside of those institutions should have all their rights restored immediately upon leaving. No UBC needed whatsoever. No background check needed whatsoever. We certainly would not be relying on gut checks. Not sure most firearms owners would make the correct "gut check" in the first place.

Think I just read on here today that Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control laws, yet murders are out of control. So, if they walk among us, we must trust them, because gun control, even OP administered gun control, is not going to work. Not in favor of UBC, then you should not be in favor of the current NICS system or the gut check system.

How many in this thread are against UBC, but all for what the OP did?

I am. Just because someone has a right to own a gun doesn’t mean they have a right to buy mine. I don’t give a shit if they have a super secret clearance with background paperwork in hand. If they seem shady to me, I’m not selling it.

That doesn’t mean I should have to go to MSP or pay an FFL to give my brother a shotgun or sell a rifle to a guy I’ve shot with for 20 years.

On a whole, I agree that everyone too dangerous to own a gun should be locked up and all free men should have the right to a gun. That is not the world we live in. We live in a state where murderers get sentenced to 8 years and can be out in a little over half of that.

PJDiesel · Sep 10, 2019

1time said:
Just because someone has a right to own a gun doesn’t mean they have a right to buy mine. I don’t give a shit if they have a super secret clearance with background paperwork in hand. If they seem shady to me, I’m not selling it.

/Thread

Now, watch me be surprised that some Members here disagree....

Speed3 · Sep 10, 2019

PJDiesel said:
/Thread

Now, watch me be surprised that some Members her disagree....

Exactly

PowPow · Sep 10, 2019

Going with one's gut is not a UBC. It's a business decision. Stick with it, and you will go far.

Apparently it's time for ... :popcorn:

grimnar15 · Sep 10, 2019

PowPow said:
Going with one's gut is not a UBC. It's a business decision. Stick with it, and you will go far.

Apparently it's time for ...

I am confident that most folks here have made intuitive decisions.

INTUITIVE: using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.

"I had an intuitive conviction that there was something unsound in him"

rockstarr · Sep 10, 2019

Stoveman said:
No, they really don't suck at their arguments.

My side opposes UBC because they don't stop mass killers and .gov shouldn't know that my shotgun now belongs to you. Period. Full stop.

Their side pushes UBCs as a preventative measure to stop the mentally ill from obtaining firearms because they can't say out loud (yet) that this is a way to register more firearms to make it easier to locate and eventually confiscate.

There, now pick a side.[/QUOTE]

Bingo

omegared24 · Sep 10, 2019

I can't believe people are pro 2A in other threads but fine with virtue signaling in this one.

The OP was selling a rifle to someone he doesn't know, got an erie feeling because some other guy was there, and decided against the sale. I regularly bring friends with me that know better than I do to purchase expensive items. You have absolutely no evidence that it was a straw purchase. For this type of sale, a straw purchase isn't necessary anyway.

If you're paranoid I suggest you sell the rifle to someone you know or via a legitimate referral. Better yet, put it on consignment and pay the commission for peace of mind.

I suspect that we have more to the story because none of this adds up. Especially after they allegedly kicked your car.

omegared24 · Sep 10, 2019

PJDiesel said:
/Thread

Now, watch me be surprised that some Members here disagree....

That wasn't the OPs argument.

Rights work both ways.

Boats · Sep 10, 2019

Meh. Your rifle. You can sell it or not sell it to whomever you choose.

The why is irrelevant.

Not even really sure why it deserves a thread, you could have not sold it because you didn't like the guy's aftershave...still a valid reason.

I agree with fabrosman, I am against UBRs but I support the OPs right to transfer his personal property as he sees fit.

What would be wrong, IMO, is if the seller then reported the buyer as a potential straw purchaser based on a hunch. That is screwing with someone else's liberty. But to my knowledge, the OP hasn't, so that point is moot

PJDiesel · Sep 10, 2019

omegared24 said:
That wasn't the OPs argument.

Rights work both ways.

His argument doesn't matter now, sale wasn't completed.

Art3 · Sep 10, 2019

There are some good lessons to take away from this for future encounters (not just firearms related), like preparedness and situational awareness. Did you get the buyer's name? Tag number? What was he driving? What do you remember them looking like?...age, hair color, skin tone, height, build, weight, tattoos...any way to identify them...hats, jewelry, funny accent? Which one of them kicked your car? They got angry about losing the sale, but what exactly did they say?

Did you tell them to bring a copy of their driver's license to go along with the bill of sale? Did you have your own wingman? Did you tell someone where you were going in case you never came back?

Possible Straw Man Purchase Prevented

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

The one with two L

TV Personality

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Major Deplorable

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Broken Member

Banned

Eqinsu Ocha

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics