Lending to family?

fabsroman · Oct 25, 2016

traveller said:
Another federal agency, the DOT, considers 'goodwill' to be something of value. As a result, they will crush anyone who receives 'goodwill' in exchange for use of an aircraft without having all the right pieces of paperwork issued by the government.

Are you serious? I cannot help but smile and laugh, versus cry. Three felonies a day, as esqappellate linked to. Just utterly incredible.

I think we can agree though, that while "friendship" is priceless, right now they have not quantified it as an intangible asset.

fabsroman · Oct 25, 2016

Mark75H said:
When the list is typed up and put into an envelope, it certainly has physical exisitance, unlike goodwill or a promise not to compete.

Think it is still considered an intangible. I don't think the form of it matters. Whether it is a physical list or a spreadsheet on a flash drive, it is still an intangible in the accounting world. Guessing it was considered an intangible before the invention of computers, or at least the widespread use of computers.

Overwatch326 · Oct 25, 2016

THier said:
Bender,

PLEASE don't think I am judging you, or your family, I just don't trust the legal system as it applies to firearms in MD. I don't want to see you or your family in trouble for doing the "right" thing when thugs somehow get off Everytime.

I would love every thug to think they will get lead poisoning in 230grain doses when they attempt to harm innocent folks who just want to live out their lives, but in MD they know they have the upper hand.

Haha, no worries. Honestly, it was a stupid idea to begin with, thinking about it now. I think I'll either gift him cash for a long gun, or convince him to get his HQL.

Nice, isn't it? Being automatically treated like a potential criminal and second-class citizen for invoking a fundamental human right? Not to mention, God forbid, wanting to protect friends and family.

traveller · Oct 25, 2016

fabsroman said:
Are you serious? I cannot help but smile and laugh, versus cry. Three felonies a day, as esqappellate linked to. Just utterly incredible.

As much bad administrative law, this one was created after some staff attorney had to bend the meaning of the law in order to catch someone who was 'getting away with something'. The bad ruling was subsequently affirmed by successive levels in the buerocracy. As the courts give near complete deference to the agencies in the interpretation of their own regulations, the only way to fix this is through congressional action.

Blacksmith101 · Oct 26, 2016

In addition to the unknown laws people inadvertently break many so called "Law Abiding" citizens regularly break the law intentionally when it inconveniences them. For example those who don't like drivers doing the speed limit in the left lane or complain when they are ticketed because they were caught in a "speed trap" or by an enforcement camera.

Pinecone · Oct 26, 2016

traveller said:
According to the Abramski decision, there is no requirement for the eventual recipient to be prohibited. It is the purchasing the firearm for someone else yet marking 'are you the recipient' that makes it a straw purchase.

Yes, it's stupid. And Obamacare is a tax.

is either prohibited or is attempting to conceal their purchase (no NICS on them)

I said that.

Brooklyn · Oct 26, 2016

esqappellate said:
No. It generally has to be a tangible thing (or service) of value.

Thanks .. it was just a bit tongue in check... But these days you never know.

Brooklyn · Oct 26, 2016

swinokur said:
yes, when seconds count, the policeare just minutes away.

Trying to define transfer in less that 3000 words, perhaps

traveller · Oct 26, 2016

Pinecone said:
I said that.

What you said is not necessary as an element of a straw purchase. Abramski didn't make any attempt to conceal from the .gov who the recipient of the gun is. The transfer to his uncle was through a FFL.

That's the tragedy of this case, they tried to do it right and it backfired.

fabsroman · Oct 26, 2016

traveller said:
What you said is not necessary as an element of a straw purchase. Abramski didn't make any attempt to conceal from the .gov who the recipient of the gun is. The transfer to his uncle was through a FFL.

That's the tragedy of this case, they tried to do it right and it backfired.

Yep. Both Abramski and his uncle did a NICS check. However, because Abramski answered that the firearm was for him, when it clearly was not, it was considered a straw purchase. They should change the Form 4473 to ask "Are you buying this firearm on behalf of somebody else so they can get your discount, and then transferring the firearm to him through a FFL?"

Just a ridiculous outcome for that case, and this is something that should trouble us way more than who is going to be the next POTUS. When the laws are so convoluted that a person can be found guilty of a straw purchase, when most of us would see no harm done whatsoever by Abramski. This is the kind of stuff that scares me to death. Going to prison on some little paperwork technicality.

Pinecone · Oct 27, 2016

traveller said:
What you said is not necessary as an element of a straw purchase. Abramski didn't make any attempt to conceal from the .gov who the recipient of the gun is. The transfer to his uncle was through a FFL.

That's the tragedy of this case, they tried to do it right and it backfired.

No, according to BATFE what I stated IS an element of a straw purchase.

But I did state the NICS check, which I did not intend to be ONLY from the gov. Any attempt to conceal the actual purchaser is a straw purchase.

Hmm, tried to the right thing? But defrauding the company by buying for a non-LEO at LEO pricing?

Pinecone · Oct 27, 2016

fabsroman said:
Yep. Both Abramski and his uncle did a NICS check. However, because Abramski answered that the firearm was for him, when it clearly was not, it was considered a straw purchase. They should change the Form 4473 to ask "Are you buying this firearm on behalf of somebody else so they can get your discount, and then transferring the firearm to him through a FFL?"

Just a ridiculous outcome for that case, and this is something that should trouble us way more than who is going to be the next POTUS. When the laws are so convoluted that a person can be found guilty of a straw purchase, when most of us would see no harm done whatsoever by Abramski. This is the kind of stuff that scares me to death. Going to prison on some little paperwork technicality.

If his uncle has paid him for the pistol AFTER he bought it, it probably would not have been a straw purchase. But he paid BEFORE, so he was the actual purchaser.

Lending to family?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

fabsroman

Ultimate Member

fabsroman

Ultimate Member

Overwatch326

Active Member

traveller

The one with two L

Blacksmith101

Grumpy Old Man

Pinecone

Ultimate Member

Brooklyn

I stand with John Locke.

Brooklyn

I stand with John Locke.

traveller

The one with two L

fabsroman

Ultimate Member

Pinecone

Ultimate Member

Pinecone

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page