PDA

View Full Version : Deputies face weapons charges UPDATE! copy of search warrant affadavit posted


Pages : [1] 2

Dirtbiker
06-01-2012, 9:41 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-calif-deputies-face-weapons-charges-16475792

So they sold off roster pistols through licensed dealers, and this is illegal how?

OK, I read the PDF all the way through, they are burnt and burnt hard...


Copy of search warrant affadavit.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/cae/news/docs/2012/06-01-12McGowenOrder%20Affadavit.pdf

gose
06-01-2012, 9:53 AM
Dealing without a license?

Wow, at least one well-known calguns member mentioned in that article...

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 10:02 AM
So much information in that article it's sad.

It's not illegal for non-LEOs in CA to buy "off-roster" handguns.....they can still buy them from a private party....which is exactly what they did.

With the exception of possibly "dealing w/o a license" all transactions legally processed thru the an FFL. To say they were "straw purchases" seems a bit misleading.

Glock22Fan
06-01-2012, 10:04 AM
What do you expect from the Lame Stream Media?

dustoff31
06-01-2012, 10:04 AM
They are charged with being straw buyers. Whether the US Atty can prove it or not is another matter.

U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagoner said the deputies were charged with serving as straw buyers by purchasing the restricted handguns. They then sold the handguns at a profit to unqualified buyers through licensed dealers, prosecutors said.

.

huntercf
06-01-2012, 10:05 AM
Is it me or is there a lot of FUD in that article.

OniKoroshi
06-01-2012, 10:05 AM
Snellings Firearms? Wow...

lawaia
06-01-2012, 10:06 AM
"U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagoner said the deputies were charged with serving as straw buyers by purchasing the restricted handguns. They then sold the handguns at a profit to unqualified buyers through licensed dealers, prosecutors said."


Sounds like there is only one charge against them. Everything else in the article is fluff.

GM4spd
06-01-2012, 10:07 AM
This is probably not an isolated situation.
These are guys that just got caught. Pete

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 10:09 AM
They are charged with being straw buyers. Whether the US Atty can prove it or not is another matter.

"They then sold the handguns at a profit to unqualified buyers through licensed dealers, prosecutors said."

That's the part I have a problem with.....call the buyers "unqualified"....like they were prohibited persons/felons/etc. They are not unqualified buyers.....they are statutorily qualified to buy off-roster handguns from a private party.

And why is the US-DOJ jacking up local LEOs over a state law? If they wanna try to make the case for dealing w/o a license....ok.....but the rest of it seems like BS.

missiondude
06-01-2012, 10:09 AM
Prompting yet more legislation to close yet another "Loophole" the PPT of non-rostered handguns. F this stupid state and it moronic "lawmakers"...

Decoligny
06-01-2012, 10:10 AM
So much information in that article it's sad.

It's not illegal for non-LEOs in CA to buy "off-roster" handguns.....they can still buy them from a private party....which is exactly what they did.

With the exception of possibly "dealing w/o a license" all transactions legally processed thru the an FFL. To say they were "straw purchases" seems a bit misleading.

They are accused essentially of buying guns for people who couldn't legally obtain those guns. In a round about way this is what they did.

If the prosecutor can prove that the officers bought the off-roster handguns with the intent of selling them for a profit to specific individuals who could not normally buy a brand new off-roster handgun, then they will have proven that they were indeed "straw-purchaser" by the Federal definition. The fact that they bought and sold "dozens" of these off-roster handguns in the period of one year indicates that they weren't just shopping around to find the gun they "really wanted" and were selling off the ones that "just didn't feel right".

I see this as being different than just "Joe Smith" who moves to California deciding that he wants a new gun, so he sells of his legally imported off-roster handgun via a PPT.

Example: Officer Snuffy buys an off-roster pistol, picks it up on Friday morning after his 10 day wait. That afternoon he comes in with Joe Citizen to do a PPT of the same gun he just picked up. This indicates that Officer Snuffy most likely bought the gun specifically for Joe Citizen, in the capacity of a straw purchaser.

Ubermcoupe
06-01-2012, 10:11 AM
Is it me or is there a lot of FUD in that article.

So much information in that article it's sad.


It’s not just you. Article was full of fail (and its relatively old news).

The whole situation just stinks. :(

Anyone know who the accused's attorneys are?

Laser Sailor
06-01-2012, 10:12 AM
If they deputies were indeed buying off-roster guns for the sole intent of selling it later wouldn't that be a straw purchase, or could it even be considered dealing without a license?

Of course I'm sure these guys bought them for themselves but later decided they didn't want them.

cc56
06-01-2012, 10:12 AM
That article screams bias. It looks like they were making a "business" out of buying and selling off roster guns. I would say not a straw purchase but UN-licensed dealing. I want to know which "criminals" got the guns? I remember when the Glock gen 4's came out it seemed like a lot of police officers were selling them for a profit. It almost seemed like they picked them up Friday morning and by Friday night they were here on calguns. The seller had "decided" that the gen 4 was not for them and sold the gun NIB marked up $200. I don't think this would be a hard case to prosecute if they bought 10 glock 17's gen 4 and sold them off in a year. I figure 1-2 off roster guns would be hard to prosecute.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 10:14 AM
They are accused essentially of buying guns for people who couldn't legally obtain those guns. In a round about way this is what they did.

If the prosecutor can prove that the officers bought the off-roster handguns with the intent of selling them for a profit to individuals who could not normally buy a brand new off-roster handgun, then they will have proven that they were indeed "straw-purchaser" by the Federal definition. The fact that they bought and sold "dozens" of these off-roster handguns in the period of one year indicates that they weren't just shopping around to find the gun they "really wanted" and were selling off the ones that "just didn't feel right".

I wonder if their defense could use the SSE to point out that there are other legal ways for people to aquire the same guns there-by mooting the claim that "CA citizens are barred from owning them."

PandaLuv
06-01-2012, 10:15 AM
Lesson learned, keep your ****ing mouth shut !

duc748bip
06-01-2012, 10:15 AM
"California law enforcement agencies registered more than 7,600 assault rifles for individual officers, many for the officers' personal use" now that is a slap in the face for civilians :facepalm:

dustoff31
06-01-2012, 10:17 AM
That's the part I have a problem with.....call the buyers "unqualified"....like they were prohibited persons/felons/etc. They are not unqualified buyers.....they are statutorily qualified to buy off-roster handguns from a private party.

Agreed.

And why is the US-DOJ jacking up local LEOs over a state law? If they wanna try to make the case for dealing w/o a license....ok.....but the rest of it seems like BS.

It's not a state law. The straw buyer thing is federal law. I'm clearly speculating here, but I would guess that the US Atty will try to make the case that the deputies bought the guns with the intent to resell them to a particular person, or perhaps were acting as a "purchasing agent" for the end users.

Remember, a straw buy is any time the true identity of the, I forget the proper term, so let's say, "end user", is concealed. It isn't necessary that they be a prohibited person.

Again, whether he can prove that, or convince a jury remains to be seen.

missiondude
06-01-2012, 10:18 AM
I wonder if their defense could use the SSE to point out that there are other legal ways for people to aquire the same guns there-by mooting the claim that "CA citizens are barred from owning them."

They probably will, prompting more BS legislation to close yet another "Loophole".

huntercf
06-01-2012, 10:21 AM
"California law enforcement agencies registered more than 7,600 assault rifles for individual officers, many for the officers' personal use" now that is a slap in the face for civilians :facepalm:

Most (if not all) of CA's gun laws are a slap in the face of civilians. The roster is one of the biggest slaps to logic.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 10:22 AM
Agreed.



It's not a state law. The straw buyer thing is federal law. I'm clearly speculating here, but I would guess that the US Atty will try to make the case that the deputies bought the guns with the intent to resell them, or perhaps were acting as a "purchasing agent" for the end users.

Remember, a straw buy is any time the true identity of the, I forget the proper term, so let's say, "end user", is concealed. It isn't necessary that they be a prohibited person.

Again, whether he can prove that, or convince a jury remains to be seen.

Except the end user isn't concealed because they had to conduct the transfer thru an FFL with 10-day wait, etc. I think that's the part that is gonna make it tough to make the case. Was the LEO-exemption a loophole? sure it was....that doesn't make it illegal.

Like I said....if they were profiting....then I can see them making a case for dealing w/o a license. But the straw-purchase thing seems kinda thin.

lilro
06-01-2012, 10:24 AM
I wonder if their defense could use the SSE to point out that there are other legal ways for people to aquire the same guns there-by mooting the claim that "CA citizens are barred from owning them."

I hope not. We need that. Once they know about it, that will be illegal too.

Nick Justice
06-01-2012, 10:26 AM
All kinds of crap...

"Easily concealable" AR pistol? Love to see that one! Wait... I have! It was massive. One would need a circus tent to conceal such a thing, and it was at a local dealer known for its good moral character.

It is not illegal for LEO to buy on off roster gun, then sell it to a citizen through an FFL.

One cannot be prosecuted for obeying the letter of the law.

dustoff31
06-01-2012, 10:26 AM
Except the end user isn't concealed because they had to conduct the transfer thru an FFL with 10-day wait, etc. I think that's the part that is gonna make it tough to make the case. Was the LEO-exemption a loophole? sure it was....that doesn't make it illegal.

Like I said....if they were profiting....then I can see them making a case for dealing w/o a license. But the straw-purchase thing seems kinda thin.

No argument here. I was just trying to make as much sense out of it as I could.

bussda
06-01-2012, 10:27 AM
More: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/01/4531329/feds-expected-to-announce-indictments.html#disqus_thread%23storylink=cpy

ubet
06-01-2012, 10:32 AM
But current law does not require the dealer to make sure the ultimate buyer is also eligible to own handguns that aren't on the Department of Justice's list of approved weapons.

Dickinson said his AB2460 would require dealers to check whether weapons are considered "unsafe handguns," and sell them only to other law enforcement officials or members of the military who are exempted under the law. The bill passed the Assembly in May and is awaiting action in the Senate.

The guns uncovered in the federal investigation were sold with magazines that contain no more than 10 bullets, the maximum allowed in California, but could easily be fitted with magazines containing 30 rounds or more. Several types of the weapons could also be readily altered with barrels and stocks that would violate California restrictions on assault weapons or short-barreled rifles.

But as sold, none of the weapons involved in the federal investigation met the legal definition of assault weapons of the sort that also are banned for civilians but available to law enforcement officials with departmental approval. The Associated Press reported in December that California law enforcement agencies registered more than 7,600 assault rifles for individual officers, many for the officers' personal use, since their ownership was restricted a decade ago.

So apparently even though its not illegal to own these things, they are prosecuting them because they might alter them to be illegal :facepalm: That fed attorney sounds like he is on marching orders from hire ups. What a bunch of @$$hats!:mad:

I though Ca didnt have a constructive possession law? :confused:

Gray Peterson
06-01-2012, 10:35 AM
I just checked the San Mateo case records for the preemption case. Early was dismissed as a plaintiff six weeks ago.

It is now CGF v. San Mateo County.

berto
06-01-2012, 10:36 AM
Shoulda just sold them to the cartels and DoJ would have helped.

ubet
06-01-2012, 10:39 AM
Their might be a silver lining in this cloud though. I am not going to say what it is, but I can see this coming back to bite the antis in this state in the ***, if the cards fall right. It might just be the case to make a few un wanted things go away.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 10:46 AM
No argument here. I was just trying to make as much sense out of it as I could.

The "straw-buyer" angle is a akin to saying because I my buddy who is over 21 lost his ID and can't go to a store and buy alcohol himself till he gets his new ID, that I am committing a crime by going and buying it for him that I have committed a crime or provided alcohol to a minor.

My buddy is legally able to possess and consume alcohol, but because of lack of ID he is not currently able to purchase it.

But if I regularly make a profit from doing so for my buddy....or others...then I could possible get digned for selling booze w/o a license.

The profit/mark-up aspect is what will prolly bite these deputies in the arse. And they better hope the IRS doesn't decide to check their returns for undeclared income.

DannyInSoCal
06-01-2012, 10:49 AM
If this is a Fed case - Based on trying to circumvent the CA DOJ roster -

Wouldn't the whole roster be suspect as an unconstitutional restriction...?

dustoff31
06-01-2012, 10:54 AM
The "straw-buyer" angle is a akin to saying because I my buddy who is over 21 lost his ID and can't go to a store and buy it himself till he gets his new ID, that I am committing a crime by going and buying it for him that I have committed a crime or provided alcohol to a minor.

My buddy is legally able to possess and consume alcohol, but because of lack of ID he is not currently able to purchase it.

But what if at the time you bought the alcohol, you had to sign a legal document under penalty of perjury that you were buying the alcohol for youself and not for, or on behalf of some other person?

Dutch3
06-01-2012, 10:59 AM
If this is a Fed case - Based on trying to circumvent the CA DOJ roster -

Wouldn't the whole roster be suspect as an unconstitutional restriction...?

We should hope that somebody takes notice of the fact the roster is indeed unconstitutional and discriminatory. It has absolutely no basis in logic or law.

Bizcuits
06-01-2012, 11:00 AM
"Ulysses Simpson Grant Early"

That's a hell of a name...

Really said that these guys are going down for what appears to simply be selling multiple firearms through a PPT. Doubt many LEO's will want to sale Off Roster guns anymore :(

mud99
06-01-2012, 11:02 AM
The misinformation and bias on the 2nd page is out-of-this-world crazy.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 11:03 AM
But what if at the time you bought the alcohol, you had to sign a legal document under penalty of perjury that you were buying the alcohol for youself and not for, or on behalf of some other person?

Yea.....I get that. But I think the requirement of FFL transfer is gonna make that tough. If we had "cash & carry, no paperwork" PPTs in CA they might have a case. But the fact the guns in question went thru to legal transfers by an FFL starts to make that case hard to make. Like I said....I think the profit aspect will bite them for dealing w/o a license, but I still dont think that makes it a straw-purchase.

Dutch3
06-01-2012, 11:04 AM
Really said that these guys are going down for what appears to simply be selling multiple firearms through a PPT. Doubt many LEO's will want to sale Off Roster guns anymore :(

Which is likely the whole point of the investigation. To make an example.

formula502
06-01-2012, 11:07 AM
I think the problem here is that it's supposedly a straw buy if you say you're the ultimate buyer on the 4473 when you intend to transfer it, no matter that you intend to transfer fully above board w/ another 4473.

A little gray area I suppose if you claim it took a few days to realize you don't want keep the gun after all, but a pattern of resale would make that a tough sell.

This catch drove me nuts when I was trying to figure a way for an out of state buddy to do an SSE for me. FFL's can do those on request b/c they don't have the intermediate 4473 standing in the way and creating a straw buy.

FourLoko
06-01-2012, 11:15 AM
I can't imagine the profit was that great. Maybe the're just nice guys.

dustoff31
06-01-2012, 11:21 AM
Yea.....I get that. But I think the requirement of FFL transfer is gonna make that tough. If we had "cash & carry, no paperwork" PPTs in CA they might have a case. But the fact the guns in question went thru to legal transfers by an FFL starts to make that case hard to make. Like I said....I think the profit aspect will bite them for dealing w/o a license, but I still dont think that makes it a straw-purchase.

I agree, the dealing without a license is pretty much a sure thing I'd say. As far as the straw buyer thing, that will be hard to prove, depending of course on the quality/makeup of the jury.

Dirtbiker
06-01-2012, 11:25 AM
I just love the name "unsafe handgun" unsafe for who? It's unsafe for me but not a leo?

I hope this case opens up the door on defeating the roster.

As far as dealing without a license I can see that happening but the transfer of "unsafe handguns" is BS and not against the law.

Ubermcoupe
06-01-2012, 11:28 AM
Yea.....I get that. But I think the requirement of FFL transfer is gonna make that tough. If we had "cash & carry, no paperwork" PPTs in CA they might have a case. But the fact the guns in question went thru to legal transfers by an FFL starts to make that case hard to make. Like I said....I think the profit aspect will bite them for dealing w/o a license, but I still dont think that makes it a straw-purchase.

Hypothetical:

If the court ruled in favor of the defendants on the straw-purchase charge, would that set precedent for redefining (or defining) what is/is not a straw purchase?

I.E. if it’s through a dealer it is 100% not a straw purchase?

stix213
06-01-2012, 11:29 AM
So much anti-gunner FUD in that article

The guns uncovered in the federal investigation were sold with magazines that contain no more than 10 bullets, the maximum allowed in California, but could easily be fitted with magazines containing 30 rounds or more. Several types of the weapons could also be readily altered with barrels and stocks that would violate California restrictions on assault weapons or short-barreled rifles.

Yeah and if I mounted a nuclear bomb to the end of an AR pistol it would make it a destructive device. If I attached a cat to the end, I'd be in violation of animal cruelty laws.....

vantec08
06-01-2012, 11:30 AM
If this is a Fed case - Based on trying to circumvent the CA DOJ roster -

Wouldn't the whole roster be suspect as an unconstitutional restriction...?

Thats my take - - - its basically an all-or-none proposition.

Decoligny
06-01-2012, 11:30 AM
The "straw-buyer" angle is a akin to saying because I my buddy who is over 21 lost his ID and can't go to a store and buy alcohol himself till he gets his new ID, that I am committing a crime by going and buying it for him that I have committed a crime or provided alcohol to a minor.

My buddy is legally able to possess and consume alcohol, but because of lack of ID he is not currently able to purchase it.

But if I regularly make a profit from doing so for my buddy....or others...then I could possible get digned for selling booze w/o a license.

The profit/mark-up aspect is what will prolly bite these deputies in the arse. And they better hope the IRS doesn't decide to check their returns for undeclared income.

Bad example. It is not a crime for you to buy it for him. It may be a crime for you to buy it, and then sell it to him, as you have no legal way to ensure he is over 21, nor do you possess a license to sell alcohol.

Whether it is a crime to buy a new-in-the-box off-roster firearm, and then sell it to someone in a PPT without even taking it out of the box, I am not sure. But, to arrange with a buyer to purchase a new-in-the-box off-roster firearm for them, when they cannot legally buy it new-in-the-box themselves, and then to try to make it appear like a normal PPT, is most likely a straw purchase.

IBJanky
06-01-2012, 11:31 AM
I hope the defendants win

myke

fullrearview
06-01-2012, 11:35 AM
What a bunch of B.S.

fullrearview
06-01-2012, 11:45 AM
I played on a department basketball team with one of the guys... He was a good dude and took his job and authority very seriously. I highly doubt he intended to be a straw purchase buyer.

I hope they beats this case.

Arkangel
06-01-2012, 12:06 PM
God I hate this state.... Now even LEO's are getting it in the @as. I hope all turns out well for the plaintiffs involved. Although I'm sure nothing but negative repercussions will follow.

curtisfong
06-01-2012, 12:18 PM
Now even LEO's are getting it in the @ss

Will CLEO get a clue and stop asking for more and more gun control in response? Doubtful. They don't care how much pain they inflict on their inferiors.

stix213
06-01-2012, 12:23 PM
I see this as they just took down a Harriet Tubman of the gun rights movement

gose
06-01-2012, 12:39 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192662

Guess he got his answer :)

Apec
06-01-2012, 12:45 PM
The weapons include easily concealable semiautomatic pistols that shoot high-velocity .223 caliber bullets, the same long-range ammunition used by the U.S. military for its M16 and M4 rifles.

Does anyone here have an IWB holster for an AR15 pistol?

Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully said three of the weapons sold by McGowan wound up in the hands of criminals. One went to a convicted drug dealer, who also is being charged in the county. The other two weapons were later illegally converted to assault weapons and recovered by Daly City police after a six-hour standoff, Scully said.

So much for making everyone do the PPTs/consignments at a FFL, with the DROS, background checks and all.

I'm guessing all that it took to convert the AR pistols into assault weapons was the installation of an ungimped mag release. Not as scary sounding as "illegally converted to assault weapons" though.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 12:45 PM
Will CLEO get a clue and stop asking for more and more gun control in response? Doubtful. They don't care how much pain they inflict on their inferiors.

might give the LEOs some motivation to get their unions to stop supporting this stuff though. We tried to tell them: "Eventually they will come for you and your guns too!"

Dirk Tungsten
06-01-2012, 12:46 PM
Wow, this really sucks. Is CGF or anyone assisting in their defense, and does anyone know if there's a legal defense fund we can contribute to?

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 12:46 PM
I'm guessing all that it took to convert the AR pistols into assault weapons was the installation of an ungimped mag release.

Put a 20 or 30rd mag in an AR pistol even with a BB and you've got an AW.

thedrickel
06-01-2012, 12:49 PM
OMG, you are all going to jail in TWO WEEKS!

I'm SRS this time!

I wonder how much political motivation there was to singling out US Grant Early, IV, as an indicted purchaser.

gose
06-01-2012, 12:50 PM
If you seriously dont think that transferring 25 (I assume off-list) handguns in four years, of which 19 were transfered within a year from purchasing them, is going to raise some flags, you're pretty ignorant or trust your brass pass waaaaaaaaaaay too much.


A search warrant unsealed this morning alleged that McGowan bought 41 handguns since 2008 and transferred 25 of them, including 19 transferred within a year of the purchase.

Some of the purchases were made through a social network site devoted to weapons enthusiasts, and the search warrant indicated that McGowan would visit the site using the screen name "SacDep."

The "SacDep" screen user also listed his occupation as working at the "Sacramento Department of Human Waste."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/01/4531329/feds-expected-to-announce-indictments.html#storylink=cpy

SteveH
06-01-2012, 12:52 PM
If they purchased the guns with the intent to flip them for profit then they should be prosecuted.

If they purchased the guns for personal use, then after trying them out decided they did not like them and sold them via PPT they should not be prosecuted.

Dirk Tungsten
06-01-2012, 12:54 PM
I wonder how much political motivation there was to singling out US Grant Early, IV, as an indicted purchaser.

I was wondering this myself, as there were at least as many purchasers as thee were guns. Why no other individuals named, I wonder? :TFH:

Dreaded Claymore
06-01-2012, 1:00 PM
The weapons include easily concealable semiautomatic pistols that shoot high-velocity .223 caliber bullets, the same long-range ammunition used by the U.S. military for its M16 and M4 rifles.

Nonsense. I bet $10,000 that they were AR "pistols," which do not remotely resemble pistols and are not concealable unless you carry a briefcase. If they were Contenders barreled in 5.56mm, they would have been single-shot-exempted from the roster.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 1:03 PM
Bad example. It is not a crime for you to buy it for him. It may be a crime for you to buy it, and then sell it to him, as you have no legal way to ensure he is over 21, nor do you possess a license to sell alcohol.

Whether it is a crime to buy a new-in-the-box off-roster firearm, and then sell it to someone in a PPT without even taking it out of the box, I am not sure. But, to arrange with a buyer to purchase a new-in-the-box off-roster firearm for them, when they cannot legally buy it new-in-the-box themselves, and then to try to make it appear like a normal PPT, is most likely a straw purchase.


I guess here is the thing with the straw purchase aspect. Did the LEO purchase the pistol because he already had a buyer for it?

If he just purchased a pistol FIRST and THEN threw an add up on CGN and some contacted him regarding the for sale add.....that lends more to dealing w/o a license.

If he had prearranged buyers, and would a purchase a specific gun with intent to transfer to them (ie taking orders) then it does start to get murky. But the fact that the buyer still had to go thru an FFL will make it sticky.

ke6guj
06-01-2012, 1:06 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192662

Guess he got his answer :)

:kest:

21SF
06-01-2012, 1:08 PM
They are accused essentially of buying guns for people who couldn't legally obtain those guns. In a round about way this is what they did.

If the prosecutor can prove that the officers bought the off-roster handguns with the intent of selling them for a profit to specific individuals who could not normally buy a brand new off-roster handgun, then they will have proven that they were indeed "straw-purchaser" by the Federal definition. The fact that they bought and sold "dozens" of these off-roster handguns in the period of one year indicates that they weren't just shopping around to find the gun they "really wanted" and were selling off the ones that "just didn't feel right".

I see this as being different than just "Joe Smith" who moves to California deciding that he wants a new gun, so he sells of his legally imported off-roster handgun via a PPT.

Example: Officer Snuffy buys an off-roster pistol, picks it up on Friday morning after his 10 day wait. That afternoon he comes in with Joe Citizen to do a PPT of the same gun he just picked up. This indicates that Officer Snuffy most likely bought the gun specifically for Joe Citizen, in the capacity of a straw purchaser.


Exactly, they where capitalizing off their badge. Buying off roster guns and selling them at a profit. Glad they got caught, personally.

Dirk Tungsten
06-01-2012, 1:08 PM
If he had prearranged buyers, and would a purchase a specific gun with intent to transfer to them (ie taking orders) then it does start to get murky. But the fact that the buyer still had to go thru an FFL will make it sticky.

Hasn't the ATF stated that they do in fact, consider this a straw purchase, regardless of the FFL's use and the end users' eligibility to own guns? Based on what we know (which is admittedly little, and way biased) the case seems as though it will turn on this fact.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 1:13 PM
Hasn't the ATF stated that they do in fact, consider this a straw purchase, regardless of the FFL's use and the end users' eligibility to own guns? Based on what we know (which is admittedly little, and way biased) the case seems as though it will turn on this fact.

Still seems to lend itself more to dealing w/o a license than straw purchase though. But IANAL....or a prosecutor.....so what do I know.

kemasa
06-01-2012, 1:17 PM
If they purchased the guns with the intent to flip them for profit then they should be prosecuted.


Why? It is called capitalism. If you can buy something and turn around and sell it, it is called making money. If all of the transfers were done legally, through a FFL, then there was no hiding of the buyers. The law (certified list) is wrong.


Dickinson said his AB2460 would require dealers to check whether weapons are considered "unsafe handguns," and sell them only to other law enforcement officials or members of the military who are exempted under the law.


Why don't they get the absurdity of the above statement? Why in the world should "unsafe" handguns be sold to LEO and military? So as to put the public at risk? This statement makes it clear it has nothing to do with safety, as well as common sense, which many seem to be lacking, especially in politics and the media.

The handguns ARE available to the public, just NOT the CA public. A person could have a residence in another state and buy the firearms there and then bring them back.

The only real issue is making a profit buying and selling firearms without a license.

lawaia
06-01-2012, 1:22 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192662

Guess he got his answer :)

If that's one of the accused, it looks more like he was asking the wrong question.

joefrank64k
06-01-2012, 1:40 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192662

Guess he got his answer :)

:kest:

"Doh!" is right! Looks like a case of engaging in a firearms business without an FFL, along with straw purchasing, plain and simple.

I retired in 2005, and everyone on my department knew that you could always sell your off-roster stuff at a profit. But we also knew that buying them with the intention of flipping them was huge no-no.

Of course, there were a few who would "wink-wink" at the "intention" thing and say they were just "trying to find the perfect back-up pistol". Sometimes that looked a little fishy when they would PPT on the same day they DROS'd, which they could do because our Chief would issue "No 10-day wait" letters.

But that was the minor leagues compared to SacDep and the other Deputy! 19 pistols PPT's within a year? Come on, man.

And all this for what? Several grand? How much in salary, benefits, and retirement did these guys just flush away? Not to mention the possible lifetime revocation of their firearms rights...wow!

joe_sun
06-01-2012, 1:44 PM
Wow I personally know two of the named individuals and both are great people. I hope nothing sticks.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

21SF
06-01-2012, 1:55 PM
Why? It is called capitalism. If you can buy something and turn around and sell it, it is called making money. If all of the transfers were done legally, through a FFL, then there was no hiding of the buyers. The law (certified list) is wrong.

.

So is drug dealing.

The speed limit is wrong too, still get a ticket...

Are you a cop?

Wow I personally know two of the named individuals and both are great people. I hope nothing sticks.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


Good people commit crimes too.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 1:59 PM
Why? It is called capitalism. If you can buy something and turn around and sell it, it is called making money. If all of the transfers were done legally, through a FFL, then there was no hiding of the buyers. The law (certified list) is wrong.


I wouldn't call it capitalism because it's not a "free market". It's someone peddling the power of their gov't office for personal profit. That's called corruption.

That is the aspect of this whole thing I find more objectionable.

21SF
06-01-2012, 2:01 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192662

Guess he got his answer :)

Lol

dem0critus
06-01-2012, 2:09 PM
..five counts of conspiracy to make false statements in federal firearm records

lol.. so he got owned for thinking about saying something that might have been false five times?

fud!

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 2:16 PM
lol.. so he got owned for thinking about saying something that might have been false five times?

fud!

No....conspiracy means planning and illegal act between one or more persons and then committing an overt act to carry out that plan.

So by having a pre-arranged buyer, ie the straw purchase, both deputy and the buyer would have conspired to have him make the false statement on the form.

kemasa
06-01-2012, 2:19 PM
I wouldn't call it capitalism because it's not a "free market". It's someone peddling the power of their gov't office for personal profit. That's called corruption.

That is the aspect of this whole thing I find more objectionable.

Please explain how those officers are "peddling the power of their gov't office". They are exempt because of the job, which is unfair and unjust to the rest of the population and that makes those that passed the law corrupt.

What do you say to the person who moves to CA and buys some off-roster firearms before moving here? Is that peddling the power of their ability to move into CA? How about the person who has homes in two different states? Is that peddling the power of their money?

What I find the most objectionable is the absurdity of the law. Change the color of the firearm or the grips, then the manufacturer has to pay even more extortion each year. If you can explain in a reasonable and rational manner why an OD Glock has to be listed separately and how it has ANYTHING to do with safety, then it would be amazing.

There are numerous ways that the certified list can be bypassed, but the reality is that no one should have to do that. The firearms are NOT illegal, the only issue is the means of transfer. A person moving into CA can bring one with them and then sell it. A resident of multiple states could bring one back. A parent/child/grandparent/grandchild can give one to a resident of CA. It can be converted to a single shot and then transferred and changed back.

People want those firearms and are willing to pay for the hoops to be jumped through.

The other option to bypass the corrupt law is for the manufacturers to pay the extortion to have the firearms tested and placed on the list. What do you say about a law which was copy and thrown out in another district?

Unjust and unfair laws should be fought and ultimately eliminated, as it was elsewhere.

kemasa
06-01-2012, 2:23 PM
So is drug dealing.

The speed limit is wrong too, still get a ticket...


Drug dealing is illegal because the item is illegal. In this case the item is not illegal, it is only limited in how it can be transferred and not just by LEOs.

Speeding is a safety issue which applies to all. There is not supposed to be any exemption based on your job, although that is often the case.

Please explain why it should be allowed for a LEO to purchase a firearm which is not on the certified list for their own use (not work related) when a non-LEO can not.



Are you a cop?


That is not relevant and is only a means to an attack. I am sorry if you can't see that it is the law which is the problem.

Swatter911
06-01-2012, 2:33 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192662

Guess he got his answer :)

I bet you see that thread again...in court.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-01-2012, 2:37 PM
More: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/01/4531329/feds-expected-to-announce-indictments.html#disqus_thread%23storylink=cpy


The local version of the story by our very own, beloved Sacramento Bee. Looks like they wrote it themselves too.

CalGuns gets a subtle unnamed plug.

kemasa
06-01-2012, 2:45 PM
Just curious, would you consider it illegal to:

See a really good deal on a firearm at a gun show because the seller does not know what they have and then buy it so you can sell it later?

Buy a firearm as an investment for later sale?

Buy more than one of a firearm, AR for example?

How often you do it is one thing, but it does not make it a straw purchase when all of the transaction are done through a FFL.

Perhaps only car dealers should be able to buy a vehicle to fix up and then sell, right?

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 2:51 PM
Please explain how those officers are "peddling the power of their gov't office". They are exempt because of the job, which is unfair and unjust to the rest of the population and that makes those that passed the law corrupt.

THEY are exempt from the roster......to use that exemption to purchase product only they are allowed to purchase by means of their gov't position and then resell them to the public at a profit is peddling the power of their office.

I dont disagree with anything else you are saying regarding the screwed up roster law. That does not change the fact that for an officer to "deal without a license" by means of his badge is an abuse of power or position and opens the door for all other manner of corruption, and influence peddling etc.

When you work in public service there are certain things you just dont do. Some public servants grasp that......some do not. It is generally looked down upon or outright illegal to personally profit from the privileges of your public service job.

kemasa
06-01-2012, 3:05 PM
THEY are exempt from the roster......to use that exemption to purchase product only they are allowed to purchase by means of their gov't position and then resell them to the public at a profit is peddling the power of their office.


Did they create the law which exempted them? Is the exemption ONLY for work use?

Are they buying and selling anything which can not be bought and sold by the public in other states?


I dont disagree with anything else you are saying regarding the screwed up roster law. That does not change the fact that for an officer to "deal without a license" by means of his badge is an abuse of power or position and opens the door for all other manner of corruption, and influence peddling etc.


All transactions have to go through a FFL. It is not really by means of the badge, but by a corrupt law which allows them to do so here, but which is nothing in other states.


When you work in public service there are certain things you just dont do. Some public servants grasp that......some do not. It is generally looked down upon or outright illegal to personally profit from the privileges of your public service job.

Yeah, right, so I guess politicians get rich by means other than abusing their office and something is done about that.

In one respect you are right in that they should not do it, but the main thing is that the law is wrong and there is nothing wrong with what they were doing in other states.

The law should be tossed out and hopefully that will happen as a result.

CBruce
06-01-2012, 3:21 PM
Couple of quick questions:
Can anyone explain how one converts an off-roster handgun into an "assault weapon"?
What's the difference between what these guys did that makes them 'straw buyers' compared to every gun shop who buys and sells guns for a profit? Is it the roster, or is it buying a specific gun for a specific person?

Dutch3
06-01-2012, 3:52 PM
What's the difference between what these guys did that makes them 'straw buyers' compared to every gun shop who buys and sells guns for a profit? Is it the roster, or is it buying a specific gun for a specific person?

First of all, we don't know "what these guys did" or did not do at this point.

I suspect the quantity of transfers is a main issue, i.e. "dealing without a license". IF (and that is an "if') it is proven that these individuals were processing "orders" for off-roster guns, it could lead to a straw purchase issue.

In either case, the roster will certainly be cited (by one side or the other) as a contributing factor. This could be a good thing, as it would expose the inequalities and illegalities of the roster itself to greater scrutiny.

Baconator
06-01-2012, 3:55 PM
http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./660/371/weapons_probe.jpg

Here is the fear mongering picture from foxnews.

Baconator
06-01-2012, 3:57 PM
Couple of quick questions:
Can anyone explain how one converts an off-roster handgun into an "assault weapon"?
What's the difference between what these guys did that makes them 'straw buyers' compared to every gun shop who buys and sells guns for a profit? Is it the roster, or is it buying a specific gun for a specific person?

I can answer half of that. They didn't have a license to sell firearms, so they are held to:

12070. (a) No person shall sell, lease, or transfer firearms unless he or she has been issued a license pursuant to Section 12071. Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not include any of the following:
(4) The infrequent sale, lease, or transfer of firearms.
(c)(1) As used in this section, "infrequent" means:
(A) For pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, less than six transactions per calendar year. For this purpose, "transaction" means a single sale, lease, or transfer of any number of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person.

CrazyPhuD
06-01-2012, 4:04 PM
Also sold were handguns that fire .50 caliber pistol bullets, a less powerful version of the same large-caliber round used in machine guns and sniper rifles

Damn I want a 50BMG pistol now!:facepalm::17:

Rockit
06-01-2012, 4:11 PM
Damn I want a 50BMG pistol now:
That you can have....just no BMG rifle.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 4:14 PM
Couple of quick questions:
Can anyone explain how one converts an off-roster handgun into an "assault weapon"?
What's the difference between what these guys did that makes them 'straw buyers' compared to every gun shop who buys and sells guns for a profit? Is it the roster, or is it buying a specific gun for a specific person?

By installing a standard mag release button or using +10rd mags in an AR pistol would render it an AW.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 4:22 PM
Did they create the law which exempted them? Is the exemption ONLY for work use?

Are they buying and selling anything which can not be bought and sold by the public in other states?



All transactions have to go through a FFL. It is not really by means of the badge, but by a corrupt law which allows them to do so here, but which is nothing in other states.



Yeah, right, so I guess politicians get rich by means other than abusing their office and something is done about that.

In one respect you are right in that they should not do it, but the main thing is that the law is wrong and there is nothing wrong with what they were doing in other states.

The law should be tossed out and hopefully that will happen as a result.


Like I said...I dont disagree with you. The law sucks and needs to go away. There is a difference between legal and ethical.

I think it's safe to say the intent of the LEO roster exemption was NOT for LEOs to use there badge to become under-the-table gun dealers. So for a public servant.....especially a LEO.....to use that exemption/privilege of their job for personal profit is unethical......and hence what I find objectionable.

Steve G
06-01-2012, 4:36 PM
There are sooooo many LEO's doing this all the time in CA. They know they will make money buying and selling off roster guns. Greedy money hungry cops get burnt. What's the issue?

kemasa
06-01-2012, 4:41 PM
Like I said...I dont disagree with you. The law sucks and needs to go away. There is a difference between legal and ethical.


The only legal aspect I can see is buying and selling without a license, but I think that is bogus since all the transactions went through a FFL. It would be different if they lived in a state where they could sell FTF.


I think it's safe to say the intent of the LEO roster exemption was NOT for LEOs to use there badge to become under-the-table gun dealers. So for a public servant.....especially a LEO.....to use that exemption/privilege of their job for personal profit is unethical......and hence what I find objectionable.

I suspect the exemption was so that LE would not object to the law, which means it was a bribe to start with. There is nothing in the law which only exempts the firearms for work, which makes the law unethical in my opinion. It is a backdoor gun ban, which is unConstitutional. As I have heard, the law was copy and thrown out in court, but CA refuses to do the right thing and get rid of it until they are forced to, just the same as the "smog impact fee" for people who moved here from out of state. CA knew it was going to get thrown out here since it was the same as other such laws, but they kept it until the court ruled here as well, then they made it difficult to get the money back.

If you claim that the exemption is a privilege of their job, doesn't that make it a problem right from the start? Why should such a privilege exist in the first place? Shouldn't that aspect be objectionable? Why should a LEO be able to purchase a handgun for personal use that others can not? In effect what the officers were doing was to correct a wrong so that everyone could get the same firearms. Is it wrong for those FFLs who do the single shot conversions to profit from it? Isn't that an abuse of their license since they are using their exemption/privilege of their job for personal profit?

If you want to go down that road, then what about the discount LEO get? What about the fact that often they don't get traffic tickets? Often their family also can get out of tickets as well. Where is the outrage for all of that? Not getting a ticket can save a lot of money. Why the selective objection when it involves firearms for a very bad law?

There is NO under the table gun dealer at all. All transactions had to go through a FFL, so everything was properly done, the 4473s, the DROS, etc.

One could say that it is more important for a duty weapon to be tested than for a civilian. Which is more likely to be dropped?

97F1504RAD
06-01-2012, 4:52 PM
Seems like a witch hunt to me.

CBruce
06-01-2012, 5:14 PM
By installing a standard mag release button or using +10rd mags in an AR pistol would render it an AW.

I was under the impression that AR "pistols" were something you could get yourself, without having to go through a LEO.

Baconator
06-01-2012, 5:15 PM
I was under the impression that AR "pistols" were something you could get yourself, without having to go through a LEO.

You can build one yourself, but it must meet certain requirements when it is initially built to not be an "unsafe" handgun. You can't just go out and purchase one unless you are exempt, or it is a single shot.

dantodd
06-01-2012, 5:23 PM
There are sooooo many LEO's doing this all the time in CA. They know they will make money buying and selling off roster guns. Greedy money hungry cops get burnt. What's the issue?

If they were doing it with the intention of making money I (aomewhat) agree. If, however they were not engaged in unlicensed dealing I fail to see the issue.

On a slightly unrelated note the FFL system is Eff'ed up. Can you imagine a special license to sell newspapers or bibles?

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
06-01-2012, 5:43 PM
I would love to be a juror on this case!
Snowballs chance I suppose.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 6:27 PM
I was under the impression that AR "pistols" were something you could get yourself, without having to go through a LEO.

Once the single shot exemption was figured out, yes, there is/was a way to get the w/o a LEO, or PPT someone who moved in from out of state with one. Prior to that no. It's only been in the last couple years that AR pistols started to be available via the SSE.

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 6:37 PM
The only legal aspect I can see is buying and selling without a license, but I think that is bogus since all the transactions went through a FFL. It would be different if they lived in a state where they could sell FTF.



I suspect the exemption was so that LE would not object to the law, which means it was a bribe to start with. There is nothing in the law which only exempts the firearms for work, which makes the law unethical in my opinion. It is a backdoor gun ban, which is unConstitutional. As I have heard, the law was copy and thrown out in court, but CA refuses to do the right thing and get rid of it until they are forced to, just the same as the "smog impact fee" for people who moved here from out of state. CA knew it was going to get thrown out here since it was the same as other such laws, but they kept it until the court ruled here as well, then they made it difficult to get the money back.

If you claim that the exemption is a privilege of their job, doesn't that make it a problem right from the start? Why should such a privilege exist in the first place? Shouldn't that aspect be objectionable? Why should a LEO be able to purchase a handgun for personal use that others can not? In effect what the officers were doing was to correct a wrong so that everyone could get the same firearms. Is it wrong for those FFLs who do the single shot conversions to profit from it? Isn't that an abuse of their license since they are using their exemption/privilege of their job for personal profit?

If you want to go down that road, then what about the discount LEO get? What about the fact that often they don't get traffic tickets? Often their family also can get out of tickets as well. Where is the outrage for all of that? Not getting a ticket can save a lot of money. Why the selective objection when it involves firearms for a very bad law?

There is NO under the table gun dealer at all. All transactions had to go through a FFL, so everything was properly done, the 4473s, the DROS, etc.

One could say that it is more important for a duty weapon to be tested than for a civilian. Which is more likely to be dropped?


Whatever man.....I'm not argue with you. I've told you I agree with what you are saying about why the law sucks. But as the "most trusted of all public servants" unethical behavior is not acceptable because it breeds corruption. But just because the law sucks doesn't give LEOs permission to engage in unethical conduct.

trying to compare it to an FFL doing SSEs is obsurd. An FFL is licensed to be in the commercial busniess of selling firearms. LEOs are in the job of being public servants....not using their badge for personal profit. And obviously the DOJ thinks these LEOs were dealing w/o a license otherwise they wouldn't be on trial now would they?

I think it's fair to assume that the intent basically was to allow LEOs the ability to aquire firearms for duty use. The fact that the law didn't limit them to ONLY duty use.....well who knows.

It was unethical behavior at a minimum regardless of the constitutionality of the law itself.

redcliff
06-01-2012, 7:57 PM
I hope that through these trials the over-reaching definition of "straw purchase" used by the BATFE is smacked down.

When firearms are transferred THROUGH an FFL to their end user the seller should not be charged with a straw purchase.

The fact that the officers had a profit motive bothers me not as the law allows them to sell handguns up to 5 times per year without being "in the business". Who among us doesn't hope our firearms appreciate in value or that we are getting a "good deal" and could resell them for more if necessary?

blakdawg
06-01-2012, 8:06 PM
Early is represented by Don Kilmer. McGowan is represented by William Portanova. The other defendants have apparently neither been arrested nor made arrangements to appear voluntarily for an arraignment. A handwritten/stamped note on Page 12 of the indictment says "As to defendant Snellings, NO BAIL WARRANT."

Misc documents from PACER aggregated at http://cf.parrhesia.com/McGowan.pdf

dantodd
06-01-2012, 8:17 PM
The fact that the officers had a profit motive bothers me not as the law allows them to sell handguns up to 5 times per year without being "in the business". Who among us doesn't hope our firearms appreciate in value or that we are getting a "good deal" and could resell them for more if necessary?

Appreciate in value is far different than take an order for X gun at Y price and then acquire the gun at Y-Z price specifically to sell it. That is when it becomes a business. Of course none of us (at least not those who are posting) know what really happened so this is all conjecture.

I hope the cops did nothing wrong and this goes away. Barring that, I hope it focuses on the unlicensed dealing issues, essentially accepting that acquiring and then selling it via an FFL can not be a Straw Purchase.

REH
06-01-2012, 8:33 PM
The California law bars citizens from buying handguns that have not been deemed safe by the state Department of Justice, but the law exempts peace officers.
So why is OK for law enforcment to use "unsafe" guns?

This roster BS must go.............................

SteveH
06-01-2012, 9:48 PM
There are sooooo many LEO's doing this all the time in CA. They know they will make money buying and selling off roster guns.

I have a hard time believing the "profit" margin on such is even worth the time it takes to do a PPT.

Seriouly, cop buys a LCP for $279.00. after Tax and DROS he's out a couple hours of his time, two trips to the gun store, gas and about $320.00. Realistically whats someone really going to pay him for that off roster gun? Maybe $350.00. So he's going to burn another hour of his time and more gas to make $30.00?

I'm not seeing the profit. He can make ten times as much by working one overtime shift on his day off. So i doubt money was the motivation here.

bwiese
06-02-2012, 12:56 AM
Agree wth SteveH above, at least for smaller-number-of-transaction individuals.

There's going to be an interesting burden in prosecuting some of the defendants - a firearm that differed only in finish, coating
or caliber from a Rostered one went thru two people who both passed background checks, went thru two DROS processes, paid
two fees, and performed two safety demo tests. And then a law was (recently) proposed to 'fix' this situation - implying things
were otherwise OK.

Liberty1
06-02-2012, 1:01 AM
I'm not seeing the profit. He can make ten times as much by working one overtime shift on his day off. So i doubt money was the motivation here.

Just Libertarian cops wanting to circumvent bad law and help good people get guns from the free states? Noble martyrs that are! Where is the defense fund link!

Liberty1
06-02-2012, 1:03 AM
Agree wth SteveH above, at least for smaller-number-of-transaction individuals.

There's going to be an interesting burden in prosecuting some of the defendants - a firearm that differed only in finish, coating
or caliber from a Rostered one went thru two people who both passed background checks, went thru two DROS processes, paid
two fees, and performed two safety demo tests. And then a law was (recently) proposed to 'fix' this situation - implying things
were otherwise OK.

It's good for headlines. Ride it out 6-8 months and then plead it out to a parking ticket when everyone has forgotten about it? :D

Cearbhall
06-02-2012, 1:42 AM
Sounds like a witch hunt to me. Maybe an anti-2A journalist involved? I've seen OL pistols from local cops in my LGS, for sale to anyone. (Taurus 1911)

tenpercentfirearms
06-02-2012, 5:35 AM
Remember boys and girls, a straw purchase has nothing to do with if a person is prohibited or if the firearm is restricted in some way. If the person buying the firearm is not the actual purchaser or transferee and checks yes that he is, he has lied on the 4473 which is a crime.

"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer , the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s)to you."

And here is an ATF explanation of the matter.

http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-4.html

SanPedroShooter
06-02-2012, 6:39 AM
Did someone mention Harriet Tubman yet....?

I am not going to speculate on why these cops were doing what they are alleged to be doing. Does it even matter outside of the courtroom?
Like many laws in California, the 'safe handgun roster' is immoral, corrupt, and I hope, found to be a burden on our fundamental right to arms.

Is someone that 'breaks' immoral laws and unjust laws really a criminal? Anymore than the person that writes or enforces them? The PC is not the bible, and there is a higher purpose in this life than mans law.

I am not saying these guys may or may not be hero's or criminals, I imagine there are like most of us, in between. Judging them soley as cops, I can say that if the police are not held to the same laws as the citizens or use their badge to get around them, things get ugly. As men, I refuse to judge them for violating an immoral law, anymore than I would judge Rosa Parks for 'breaking the law' in her refusal to sit at the back of the bus.

My comaparison is flawed I know, but when good people break bad laws, I have a hard time supporting their persecuters. Especially when they are such bad actors as the State of California and the BATFE.

Yaki
06-02-2012, 6:52 AM
QUOTE=missiondude;8681538]Prompting yet more legislation to close yet another "Loophole" the PPT of non-rostered handguns. F this stupid state and it moronic "lawmakers"...[/QUOTE]

:iagree:[

MaHoTex
06-02-2012, 6:54 AM
At the end of the article is said AB2460 will be introduced to prevent the transfer of non-roster guns to people not eligible to purchase these guns otherwise.

Bummer....

Dump1567
06-02-2012, 7:25 AM
After reading the indictment, it sounds like the dealer was the one making the most profit from this. These guns were being transfered back to him to sell as a PPT's. He may have even lead the LEO's to believe that this was OK, and it was a loophole in the law? But who knows.

The biggest problem I see is this.
How many guns can an individual sell over a certain amount of time before the ATF considers them dealing without a license?

Go to any Forums "for sale" section and track certain memebers selling activities. How many sales can you have before the ATF deems you an unlicensed dealer? And it's all documented on the forum. Complete with feedback from your satisfied customer. Not real hard to show a profit, as guns go up in value, especially around certain elections.

eaglemike
06-02-2012, 7:29 AM
If the law ends up saying non-rostered guns cannot be transferred - this is a HUGE problem. Many of us like the older S&W, for instance. So as soon as something drops off the roster, you either own it forever or send it out of state. Ouch!!

ETA: IMO it's going to be a little tough to prove beyond doubt based on what we know.

bruss01
06-02-2012, 7:32 AM
A win in Pena v Cid essentially moots this case, provided the officers were circumspect and did not go beyond six sales per calendar year.

A good attorney will find a way to have this case delayed pending the outcome in Pena. If the Roster is ruled unconstitutional, then any violations of the roster law will be rendered as if they had never happened, thus no case.

Excepting a direct admission, it's going to be very difficult to PROVE allegations of a straw man purchase if they buyer was not disqualified from the purchase.

Dump1567
06-02-2012, 7:33 AM
Remember boys and girls, a straw purchase has nothing to do with if a person is prohibited or if the firearm is restricted in some way. If the person buying the firearm is not the actual purchaser or transferee and checks yes that he is, he has lied on the 4473 which is a crime.



And here is an ATF explanation of the matter.

http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-4.html


Good info. Seems to be what they're being charged with.

Keep in mind that a straw purchase is a purchase in which the actual purchaser uses someone else — a.k.a. the “straw person” — to purchase the firearm and complete the paperwork. Generally, the straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is not eligible to conduct a transaction because he or she is a felon or other prohibited person. However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case. Additionally make sure you familiarize yourself and anyone who purchases a firearm as a gift with the rules associated with the ATF I 5300.2 pamphlet.

HK-40
06-02-2012, 8:21 AM
Interesting case....

One question .

How do they define "DEALING W/O a LICENSE" ?

6172crew
06-02-2012, 10:11 AM
Seems like a witch hunt to me.

I hope you're right, Id like to see these guys win big. The laws have a problem where a problem didn't exist before some lame brained roster was born.

rbetts
06-02-2012, 10:27 AM
Still trying to figure out why Snelling is in the case as a conspirator? AS the FFL, He would have had to have had discussions with the defendants about what they were doing, or by doing same day pick up and Re-DROS. Same Day pick up and PPT are not illegal, so seems far fetched that the former CA DOJ agent turned FFL was a conspirator.

ke6guj
06-02-2012, 10:28 AM
A win in Pena v Cid essentially moots this case, provided the officers were circumspect and did not go beyond six sales per calendar year.

A good attorney will find a way to have this case delayed pending the outcome in Pena. If the Roster is ruled unconstitutional, then any violations of the roster law will be rendered as if they had never happened, thus no case.

Excepting a direct admission, it's going to be very difficult to PROVE allegations of a straw man purchase if they buyer was not disqualified from the purchase.but they are being charged with federal violations, not state violations. Whether or not the roster exists, the alleged federal violations still occured.

ke6guj
06-02-2012, 10:39 AM
Still trying to figure out why Snelling is in the case as a conspirator? AS the FFL, He would have had to have had discussions with the defendants about what they were doing, or by doing same day pick up and Re-DROS. Same Day pick up and PPT are not illegal, so seems far fetched that the former CA DOJ agent turned FFL was a conspirator.IIRC, in one of the articles, it was said that the FFL was buying back firearms and then reselling them to others. At first, i thought that the writer was just misdescribing how a PPT is processed through the FFL's books. Now, I'm wondering if they were actually selling the off-roster handgun to the LEO and then the LEO was then putting the handgun on cosignment with the FFL so that it could be resold.

Depending on how the payment was processed, perhaps the LEO never paid for the gun in the first place, but was just DROSed to him so that it could then be put on cosignment, and that once it was sold, the FFL just kept the money. Or, the LEO did pay for the firearm, it was DROSed to him, then he sells the handgun back to the FFL but they paper it as a cosignment instead of as a purchase by the FFL.

As you can see, there could be a couple ways that the FFL and LEO could have conspired to get off-roster handguns into the FFL's display case that he could then sell to the public, without having to deal with SSE.

Dump1567
06-02-2012, 10:43 AM
Still trying to figure out why Snelling is in the case as a conspirator? AS the FFL, He would have had to have had discussions with the defendants about what they were doing, or by doing same day pick up and Re-DROS. Same Day pick up and PPT are not illegal, so seems far fetched that the former CA DOJ agent turned FFL was a conspirator.


Read the indictment linked in this thread.

Sounds like he would order the guns for the LEO's. The LEO's would then PPT them back to Snelling. Who would than sell them on consignment or PPT at a mark-up.

MP301
06-02-2012, 10:43 AM
Still trying to figure out why Snelling is in the case as a conspirator? AS the FFL, He would have had to have had discussions with the defendants about what they were doing, or by doing same day pick up and Re-DROS. Same Day pick up and PPT are not illegal, so seems far fetched that the former CA DOJ agent turned FFL was a conspirator.


IIRC, He worked for DOJ in IT and was not an agent. And he was also one of the first that I remember that started selling lowers.

blakdawg
06-02-2012, 11:34 AM
Still trying to figure out why Snelling is in the case as a conspirator? AS the FFL, He would have had to have had discussions with the defendants about what they were doing, or by doing same day pick up and Re-DROS. Same Day pick up and PPT are not illegal, so seems far fetched that the former CA DOJ agent turned FFL was a conspirator.

According to the indictment, he bought/resold off-roster guns via PPT not as an FFL.

626Tony
06-02-2012, 11:42 AM
i think the same thing happend in tx or someplace like but it was different he was posting on gunbroker and didnt even have the weapon yet selling for a profit i guess he was better off getting a FFL

compulsivegunbuyer
06-02-2012, 11:48 AM
I think we all can agree that the laws are ridiculous.

blakdawg
06-02-2012, 12:12 PM
Here is a rough OCR of the text of the indictment, part 1:

The Grand Jury charges: THAT
At all times relevant to this Indictment:
1. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF) is an agency of the United States Government tasked. with
the responsibility of supervising, controlling, and licensing the
sale of firearms.
2. A Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) is an individual or
entity, who after submitting an application and uridergoing an
investigation by ATF, is then granted a license to sell certain
firearms, and other controlled items. Federal firearms laws
require anyone, who is a firearms dealer to obtain a federal
firearms license. Private persons can sell firearms without a
license, provided they are not engaged in the business of selling
firearms, such as the occasional sale of a portion of a personal
firearms collection.
3. An ATF Form 4473 is a document required to be completed
by the actual buyer of a firearm from any FFL. Under California
law, private persons who sell a firearm must use an FFL to
transfer the firearm. The FFL must assure that ATF Form 4473 is
completed by the actual buyer of a firearm prior to the sale or
transfer of the firearm between private parties and must reta±n
the original completed ATF Form 4473 on his/her premises. The
ATF Form 4473, Section A must be completed by the actual buyer
and must contain, among other information, the name and residence
address of the actual buyer, along with the assurance that the
buyer is the actual buyer of the firearm and is not acquiring the
firearm on behalf of another person.
4. Pursuant to State law, certain firearms known as "off
roster" firearms are not on the approved list of firearms and may
not be offered for sale to the public as a new firearm, by FFLs in
California, but may only be purchased new by sworn law
enforcement officers. Such firearms may later be lawfully sold
by a law enforcement officer to the public in a "private party"
transaction conducted through an FFL.

COUNT ONE: [18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (1) (A) Engaging in·the
Business of Dealing in Firearms Without a
License]
The Grand Jury charges: THAT RYAN McGOWAN,
defendant herein, beginning on or about February 2008, and
continuing through at least November 2011, in the County of
Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, and
elsewhere, not having received a license to engage in the
business of dealing in firearms as required by Title 18 of the
United States Code, Section 923, did engage in the business of
dealing in firearms and, in the course of such business, received
firearms that had been shipped and transported in interstate and
foreign commerce, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 922(a) (1) (A).

COUNT TWO: [18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Make a False
Statement with Respect to Firearm Records]
The Grand Jury further charges: THAT RYAN McGOWAN, and ROBERT SNELLINGS,
defendants herein, beginning on or about July 1, 2009, and
continuing through July 27, 2009, in the County of Sacramento,
State and Eastern District of California, and elsewhere, did
conspire with each other, and with other persons known and
unknown to the Grand Jury, to knowingly make a false statement
and representation with respect to information required to be
kept under federal law by an FFL, specifically representing on
Form 4473 that defendant RYAN McGOWAN was the actual buyer of a
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Model LCP, .380 caliber handgun, serial
number 37182507, when he was not the actual buyer, in violation
of Title 18, United States Code Section 924(a) (1) (A).
The Grand Jury further charges: THAT ROBERT SNELLINGS,
defendant herein, beginning on or about June 17, 2010, and
continuing through July 5, 2010, in the County of Sacramento,
State and Eastern District of California, and elsewhere, did
conspire with other persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury,
to knowingly make a false statement and representation with
respect to information required to be kept under federal law by
an FFL, specifically representing on Form 4473 that unindicted
coconspirator C.L. was the actual buyer of a Sturm, Ruger & Co.,
Model LCP, .380 caliber handgun, serial number 37437161, when he
was not the actual buyer, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 924(a) (1) (A).

Overt Acts
As part, and in furtherance of the conspiracy, overt acts
were committed including, but not limited to, the following:
1. On June 17, 2010, Sacramento Police Officer C.L. started
the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) process for two Sturm, Ruger &
Co., model LCP, .380 caliber handguns with serial numbers
37437161 and 37437405. This transaction was completed by
defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS as an FFL for Snellings' Firearms.
These firearms were "off roster" firearms, not on the approved
list of handguns for sale in Californial and could only be
purchased new from an FFL by a peace officer. At the time C.L.
filled out ATF Form 4473 he and defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS knew
that B.G. was the actual buyer and.not C.L.
2. Approximately 19 days later, on July 51 2010, C.L.
private party transferred the Sturm, Ruger & CO, model LCP, .380
caliber handgun, with serial number 37437161, to B.G. The
private party transfer was completed by defendant ROBERT
SNELLINGS as an FFL.
3. In furtherance of the conspiracy, B.G. paid defendant
ROBERT SNELLINGS directly for the firearm.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
371.

COUNT FOUR:
[18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Make a False
Statement with Respect to Firearm Records]
The Grand Jury further charges: THAT ROBERT SNELLINGS,
defendant herein, beginning on or about August 12, 2010, and
continuing through on or about September 13, 2010, in the County
of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, and
elsewhere, did conspire with other persons known and unknown to
the Grand Jury, to knowingly make a false statement and
representation with respect to information required to be kept
under federal law by an FFL, specifically representing on Form
4473 that unindicted coconspirator C.L. was the actual buyer of a
Carl Walther, model PK 380, .380 caliber handgun, serial number
PK038993, when he was not the actual buyer, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 924 (a) (1). (A) .

Overt Acts
As part, and in furtherance of the conspiracy, overt acts
were committed including, but not limited to, the following:
1. On or about August 12, 2010, Sacramento Police Officer
C.L. started the DROS process for a semiautomatic, Carl Walther,
model PK380, ".38 caliber" handgun, serial number PK038993.
Defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS was listed as the FFL that completed
the paperwork for this firearm. The entry of the caliber on
August 12, 2010 as ".38" is not correct. This handgun is not on
the roster of approved handguns for sale to the public in
California and can only be purchased new from an FFL by a peace
officer.
2. On September 13, 2010, approximately 32 days later,
C.L. private party transferred the same firearm to defendant
ROBERT SNELLINGS as a private person to complete the "straw
purchase" transaction. The firearm was transferred to defendant
ROBERT SNELLINGS, using defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS' business as
the FFL to conduct the paperwork.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
371.

COUNT FIVE:
[18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Make a False
Statement with Respect to Firearm Records]
The Grand Jury further charges: THAT
ROBERT SNELLINGS,
defendant herein, beginning on or about July 9, 2009, and
continuing through on or about August 4, 2009, in the County of
Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, and
elsewhere, did conspire with other persons known and unknown to
the Grand Jury, to knowingly make a false statement and
representation with respect to information required to be kept
under federal law by an FFL, specifically representing on Form
4473 that unindicted coconspirator C.K. was the actual buyer of a
Carl Walther, Model PPS, .40 caliber handgun, serial number
AD3719, when he was not the actual buyer, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 924 (a) (1) (A) .

Overt Acts
As part, and in furtherance of the conspiracy, overt acts
were committed including, but not limited to, the following:
1. On or about July 9, 2009, Roseville Police Officer C. K.
started the DROS process for the purchase of a Carl Walther,
model·PPS, .40 caliber handgun, serial number AD3719. This
handgun is not on the roster of approved handguns for sale to the
public in California and can only be purchased new from an FFL by
a peace officer. Defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS was the FFL that
completed the ATF Form 4473 paperwork. C.K. listed himself as
the actual buyer of the handgun, when in fact the actual buyer of
the handgun was defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS.
2. The same firearm was later transferred to defendant
ROBERT SNELLINGS, as a private person, using ROBERT SNELLINGS, as
the FFL, to complete the transfer. This is the same firearm C.K.
obtained the month prior.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
371.

COUNT SIX: [18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Make a False
Statement With Respect to Firearm Records]
The Grand Jury further charges: THAT
ROBERT SNELLINGS, and
ULYSSES SIMPSON GRANT EARLY, IV,
defendants herein, beginning on or about April 29, 2010, and
continuing through on or about May 27, 2010, in the County of
Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, and
elsewhere, did conspire with each other, and other persons known
and unknown to the Grand Jury, to knowingly make a false
statement and representation with respect to information required
to be kept under federal law by an FFL, specifically representing
on Form 4473 that unindicted co-conspirator C.K. was the actual
buyer of a Sturm, Ruger & Co., model LCP, .380 caliber handgun,
serial number 37300127, when he was not the actual buyer, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924 (a) (1) (A) .

Overt Acts
As part, and in furtherance of the conspiracy, overt acts
were committed including, but not limited to, the following:
1. On or about April 29, 2010, Roseville Police Officer
C.K. started the DROS process to purchase a Sturm, Ruger & Co.,
model LCP, .380 caliber handgun, serial number 37300127, from
Snellings' Firearms. This handgun is not on the roster of
approved handguns for sale to the public in California and can
only be purchased new from an FFL by a peace officer. Unindicted
co-conspirator C. K. was able to purchase this firearm due to his
peace officer status.
2. During the purchase of this firearm, C.K. filled out
ATF Form 4473. Question 12a asks: "Are you the actual buyer of
this firearm(s) listed on the form?" On the form, C.K. answered
"yes" to question 12a. If C.K. did not answer "yes", the sale
would have been prohibited by law. At the time C.K. filled out
ATF Form 4473, he and defendants ROBERT SNELLINGS and ULYSSES
SIMPSON GRANT EARLY, IV, had no doubt that C.K. was not the
actual buyer, but that the true actual buyer was defendant
ULYSSES SIMPSON GRANT EARLY, IV.
3. On May 27, 2010, approximately 28 days later, C.K.
private party transferred the Sturm, Ruger & Co., model LCP, .380
caliber handgun, serial number 37300127, to ULYSSES SIMPSON GRANT
EARLY, IV. The private party transfer was completed by defendant
ROBERT SNELLINGS as the FFL.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
371.

blakdawg
06-02-2012, 12:13 PM
part two:

COUNT SEVEN:
[18 U.S.C. § 922 (a) (1) (A) - Engaging in the
Business of Dealing in Firearms Without a
License]
The Grand Jury further charges: THAT
THOMAS LU,
defendant herein, on or about March 2008, and continuing through
at least November 2011, in the County of Sacramento, State and
Eastern District of California, and elsewhere, not having
received a license to engage in the business of dealing in
firearms as required by Title 18, United States Code, Section
923, did engage in the business of dealing in firearms and, in
the course of such business, received firearms that had been
shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(a) (1) (A).

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION: [18 U.S.C. § 924 (d) (1) and 28 U.S.C. §
2461 (e) - Criminal Forfeiture]
Upon conviction of one of more of the offenses alleged
in Counts One through Seven of this Indictment, defendants RYAN
McGOWAN, ROBERT SNELLINGS, ULYSSES SIMPSON GRANT EARLY, IV, and
THOMAS LU shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 924 (d) (1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any firearms and
ammunition involved in or used in the knowing or willful
commission of the offenses.
2. If any property subject to forfeiture, as a result of
the offenses alleged in Counts One through Seven of this
Indictment, for which defendants are convicted:
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a
third party;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot
be divided without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2461(c), incorporated by 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), to seek forfeiture
of any other property of said defendants, up to the value of the
property subject to forfeiture.

A TRUE BILL.

/s/
FOREPERSON

kemasa
06-02-2012, 12:39 PM
The LEO's would then PPT them back to Snelling. Who would than sell them on consignment or PPT at a mark-up.

Based on what was posted in regards to the charges, the PPT is just the way firearms which are not on the certified list are transferred when consigned. The charges say that the PPT was from one person to another and that Snelling did the transfer, not that it was transferred to him personally.

Dump1567
06-02-2012, 1:35 PM
Based on what was posted in regards to the charges, the PPT is just the way firearms which are not on the certified list are transferred when consigned. The charges say that the PPT was from one person to another and that Snelling did the transfer, not that it was transferred to him personally.


I thought that's what was listed here:

Defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS was the FFL that
completed the ATF Form 4473 paperwork. C.K. listed himself as
the actual buyer of the handgun, when in fact the actual buyer of
the handgun was defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS.
2. The same firearm was later transferred to defendant
ROBERT SNELLINGS, as a private person, using ROBERT SNELLINGS, as
the FFL, to complete the transfer. This is the same firearm C.K.
obtained the month prior.

blakdawg
06-02-2012, 1:38 PM
McGowan is also facing criminal charges in Sacramento County (case no. 12F03814):

C001 PC 12020(A)(2 FEL
C002 PC 12020(A)(2 FEL
C003 PC 12280(B) FEL
C004 PC 12280(B) FEL
C005 HS 11377(A) FEL

12020(a) is possession of a dangerous weapon; it's interesting that they're using the old Penal Code section.

11377(a) is unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
12280(b) is illegal possession of an assault weapon, also using the pre-renumber Penal Code section.

Librarian
06-02-2012, 1:40 PM
McGowan is also facing criminal charges in Sacramento County (case no. 12F03814):

C001 PC 12020(A)(2 FEL
C002 PC 12020(A)(2 FEL
C003 PC 12280(B) FEL
C004 PC 12280(B) FEL
C005 HS 11377(A) FEL

12020(a) is possession of a dangerous weapon; it's interesting that they're using the old Penal Code section.

11377(a) is unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
12280(b) is illegal possession of an assault weapon, also using the pre-renumber Penal Code section.

That suggests the charges may have been filed before January, even though we did not see them until now.

kemasa
06-02-2012, 1:47 PM
I thought that's what was listed here:

Most of the ones that I saw were said to have been transferred to another person, so that one might have actually been for Snelling personally. Do you see anywhere that it was then sold to another person?

blakdawg
06-02-2012, 1:54 PM
That suggests the charges may have been filed before January, even though we did not see them until now.

Or perhaps the violations took place or began before January.

Dump1567
06-02-2012, 2:05 PM
Most of the ones that I saw were said to have been transferred to another person, so that one might have actually been for Snelling personally. Do you see anywhere that it was then sold to another person?

Didn't state if it was sold to anyone else. Maybe he just wanted it for himself.

Maybe C.K. ordered it without ever seeing one in person. An than when it came in, he didn't like it or it wasn't what he expected. Instead of returning it (some dealers charge a re-stocking fee or he bought on an auction site) Snelling liked it and said he'd buy it. I think intent is going to be hard to prove-up on this one.

pnkssbtz
06-02-2012, 2:14 PM
So, the whole "straw buyer" argument hinges around the fact that the people they sold the handguns too were not eligible to purchase the handguns because they resided in a state that didn't allow these specific handguns for purchase despite these handguns being for sale to the general public in other states?

It seems to me that this specific charge is predicated on a law (Safe Handgun List) that by the very nature of the accusation of violation thereof, causes said law to demonstrate it's unconstitutionality on at least two fronts.


The officers were re-selling handguns that non-leo's could not normally purchase through a vendor, yet were readily available and prevalent for sale in other states.

Not only does this clearly demonstrate that the CA Safe Handgun Law violates the 2nd Amendment in that it's restricting the purchase and ownership of weapons in common usage and possession, but demonstrating also a violation of due process and equal protection under the law by creating a class system were a privileged few have access to purchase while the regular citizenry do not.

Dump1567
06-02-2012, 2:37 PM
Well according to the ATF and their definition, they're lying on the 4473 Form as they are not the actual purchaser, as they're knowingly buying these for resale.
I'm assuming that's the part the prosecutor will have to prove-up to a jury.

Keep in mind that a straw purchase is a purchase in which the actual purchaser uses someone else — a.k.a. the “straw person” — to purchase the firearm and complete the paperwork. Generally, the straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is not eligible to conduct a transaction because he or she is a felon or other prohibited person. However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case. Additionally make sure you familiarize yourself and anyone who purchases a firearm as a gift with the rules associated with the ATF I 5300.2 pamphlet.

SilverTauron
06-02-2012, 2:44 PM
So, the whole "straw buyer" argument hinges around the fact that the people they sold the handguns too were not eligible to purchase the handguns because they resided in a state that didn't allow these specific handguns for purchase despite these handguns being for sale to the general public in other states?

It seems to me that this specific charge is predicated on a law (Safe Handgun List) that by the very nature of the accusation of violation thereof, causes said law to demonstrate it's unconstitutionality on at least two fronts.


The officers were re-selling handguns that non-leo's could not normally purchase through a vendor, yet were readily available and prevalent for sale in other states.

Not only does this clearly demonstrate that the CA Safe Handgun Law violates the 2nd Amendment in that it's restricting the purchase and ownership of weapons in common usage and possession, but demonstrating also a violation of due process and equal protection under the law by creating a class system were a privileged few have access to purchase while the regular citizenry do not.

Perhaps I read this wrong, but as a resident of 'Free America' it is my assertion that what they did was illegal everywhere in the US. The California Roster isn't even relevant in the charges.

From the indictment post (thanks blakdawg!)

At the time C.L.
filled out ATF Form 4473 he and defendant ROBERT SNELLINGS knew
that B.G. was the actual buyer and.not C.L.
2. Approximately 19 days later, on July 51 2010, C.L.
private party transferred the Sturm, Ruger & CO, model LCP, .380
caliber handgun, with serial number 37437161, to B.G. The
private party transfer was completed by defendant ROBERT
SNELLINGS as an FFL.
3. In furtherance of the conspiracy, B.G. paid defendant
ROBERT SNELLINGS directly for the firearm.
All in violation of Title 1

It looks to me like the Feds are charging the officers with a classic Straw Purchase rap. The LEO's asserted on the Federal Form 4473 that they were the actual buyers and owners of the transferred firearms, when in fact they intended to sell the weapons to someone else. That's illegal no matter what state you live in;the roster only matters in that it provided a motive for the LEOs to straw purchase the weapon. Either way, the Feds don't care if you buy a gun and resell it to a crack dealer in an alley or to your brother:if you sign the 4473 stating that Gun X is YOURS, when in fact you intended on selling it to Person Y at the time of the transaction you're hosed.

The hard part about straw purchase "crimes" for the authorities is proving intent at the time of sale. How can the ATF tell the difference if someone buys a gun , takes it to the range the same hour and doesn't like it, and sells it to Joe Bob versus if the 'buyer' bought it 'for' Joe Bob? They cannot, usually.

Unless there happens to be a statewide sales database which conveniently documents not only when the firearm is sold, but when it changes hands privately and whose hands its sold to. In Free America the ATF's case would be weak ,because after the 4473 there'd be no record of the transfer from straw purchaser to the second party. Gun is bought, 4473 recorded, LEO sells the gun in the parking lot , cash changes hands, no records or DROS takes place, and that's that. The Feds would have to catch the cops red handed on tape to effect an arrest. In California the DROS conveniently tells the tale on paper for all to see, and its why they're pursing the conviction in this manner.Without the DROS system, they'd have no case. The Roster only applies in the case of motive and for the fact that it helped the ATF's case.

Dump1567
06-02-2012, 2:49 PM
And it probably didn't help that every transaction was logged in and out of the same dealers A/D book.

RobG
06-02-2012, 3:03 PM
Based on the above complaint, seems likely the unindicted coconspirators, CL, CK, and BG, cut deals for testimony against the indicted conspirators.

A bunch of sh*t to go through to get a freakin LCP.:rolleyes:

SilverTauron
06-02-2012, 3:11 PM
Based on the above complaint, seems likely the unindicted coconspirators, CL, CK, and BG, cut deals for testimony against the indicted conspirators.

A bunch of sh*t to go through to get a freakin LCP.:rolleyes:

Woulda been cheaper to move out if they wanted the gun that bad, eh?;)

Yet one more reason the Disarmament Lobby is crusading against private sales via the "Gun Show Loophole". If those folks had their way selling a gun would be a one way ticket to the Federal courthouse-let this case stand out next time you hear someone spouting drivel about closing this imaginary loophole. Whats really being said is they want to toss you in jail for trading a gun.

kemasa
06-02-2012, 3:29 PM
One major problem with the straw sale argument that I see is that ALL transfers went through a FFL. It is not like in other states where you can buy a firearm and sell it FTF.

Under this view, if you go to a gun show and see a really good deal, perhaps because the seller doesn't know what it is really worth, so you buy it and then turn around to sell it, they could claim that it was a straw purchase since you were not the actual buyer.

To me, in CA where almost all firearms transfers have to go through a FFL, you are the actual buyer if you buy something and intend to flip it and later sell the firearm through a FFL. Nothing is hidden. I know the BATF does not have this view, but I have to wonder how a jury would view it.

jmdove
06-02-2012, 3:34 PM
I only wish I could be on that jury because I would hand this
unwarranted and evil prosecution a defeat! :mad:

It really is time for us to get our act together and start branding the
liberal politicians of this state as what they really are-thieves
stealing our freedoms and choices away by inacting vindictive,
outrageously unjust laws!

Solidsnake87
06-02-2012, 4:25 PM
Wow, Snelling is one of the good guys.

Honestly, he was the best FFL I've ever worked with. I can't believe this BS is happening to him. I hope he pulls through this without charge!

ewarmour
06-02-2012, 4:47 PM
Also sold were handguns that fire .50 caliber pistol bullets, a less powerful version of the same large-caliber round used in machine guns and sniper rifles.

WTF does that even mean? :facepalm:

RRangel
06-02-2012, 4:49 PM
Ok, so two deputies are charged, with basically operating an unofficial firearms business. While those involved in Fast and Furious are ignored. Just great.

bigstones
06-02-2012, 5:00 PM
This case is not about illegally selling guns, it is about the stupidity of the roster. Throw in some sensationalism by the media and grandstanding by politicians in an election year and there you have it. Look at this paragraph:

The weapons include easily concealable semiautomatic pistols that shoot high-velocity .223 caliber bullets, the same long-range ammunition used by the U.S. military for its M16 and M4 rifles. Also sold were handguns that fire .50 caliber pistol bullets, a less powerful version of the same large-caliber round used in machine guns and sniper rifles. Investigators say semiautomatic handguns built to look like Israeli!-made Uzi submachine guns also were bought and sold.

pnkssbtz
06-02-2012, 5:11 PM
It looks to me like the Feds are charging the officers with a classic Straw Purchase rap. The LEO's asserted on the Federal Form 4473 that they were the actual buyers and owners of the transferred firearms, when in fact they intended to sell the weapons to someone else. That's illegal no matter what state you live in;the roster only matters in that it provided a motive for the LEOs to straw purchase the weapon. Either way, the Feds don't care if you buy a gun and resell it to a crack dealer in an alley or to your brother:if you sign the 4473 stating that Gun X is YOURS, when in fact you intended on selling it to Person Y at the time of the transaction you're hosed.Did the second recipient of the firearm fill out a form 4473 and DROS?

A straw purchase, is when say a wife buys a handgun for her husband, who is a felon and thus not allowed to purchase or own a firearm. I.E. purchasing the firearm on behalf of another who is otherwise a prohibited person.


By the logic presented, a parent purchasing a firearm for their child, who is not of legal age to purchase/own a firearm is committing a straw purchase. Or what about a husband/wife buying a firearm as a gift for their spouse who is not a legally prohibited person?

JGarrison
06-02-2012, 5:54 PM
Reminds me of the FBI agent who was sent to prison for the same crimes.

http://www.shipleylegalfund.com/guilty.php

SilverTauron
06-02-2012, 6:01 PM
Did the second recipient of the firearm fill out a form 4473 and DROS?

A straw purchase, is when say a wife buys a handgun for her husband, who is a felon and thus not allowed to purchase or own a firearm. I.E. purchasing the firearm on behalf of another who is otherwise a prohibited person.


By the logic presented, a parent purchasing a firearm for their child, who is not of legal age to purchase/own a firearm is committing a straw purchase. Or what about a husband/wife buying a firearm as a gift for their spouse who is not a legally prohibited person?


According to the ATF there is no distinction made regarding legal status of the straw recipient.

Its icing on the indictment cake if the person being supplied to has a record;but that's not the crime in question here. The violation is perjury against the Federal form 4473 when the buyer marks "yes" to the first question asking if the buyer is the intended recipient, knowing full well at the time of the transaction they were going to sell the weapon to someone else. It doesn't matter if the person getting the weapon has a record or not, because the buyer is on the hook for lying to Uncle Sam.


Quoted from the Horse's Mouth:

However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case. Additionally make sure you familiarize yourself and anyone who purchases a firearm as a gift with the rules associated with the ATF I 5300.2 pamphlet.

-http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-4.html

stillnotbob
06-02-2012, 6:31 PM
I do not understand the 'straw purchaser" here. I though that a "straw purchaser" bought a firearm and then just GAVE IT to someone that could not purchase the firearm legally. These guys sold the firearms through a FFL to the other person. So the person buying the firearm had to have a back ground check. ??????

vincewarde
06-02-2012, 6:31 PM
Ok, I'll try to address these issues:

Just curious, would you consider it illegal to:

See a really good deal on a firearm at a gun show because the seller does not know what they have and then buy it so you can sell it later?

Those of us with C&R FFLs have to be careful about this point. I would not by the firearm with the intent of quickly reselling it. I might buy it, add it to my collection and be glad that as an asset it was already worth more than I paid for it. As with all my guns, I would be able to sell it at some future date.

Buy a firearm as an investment for later sale?

I don't think anyone would consider that "being in the business of selling firearms" any more than buying a house as an investment makes you a real estate agent.

Buy more than one of a firearm, AR for example?

Assuming you are buying them for use by yourself or your family, how would that be a problem. Maybe you are assembling a collection.

How often you do it is one thing, but it does not make it a straw purchase when all of the transaction are done through a FFL.

Maybe, maybe not. That is what this case is all about. It's really about intent. It's hard to argue that the gun you sold without ever firing it (on the same day you picked it up) was purchased for your use. If you are not "the actual purchaser of the firearm" it is a straw purchase, period.

Perhaps only car dealers should be able to buy a vehicle to fix up and then sell, right?

Guess what? There is such a law. Sell too many cars and they can nail you for selling cars without a license.

And BTW, if you simply want to buy guns and fix them up for resale and sell them yourself, you need both an 07 AND 01 FFL!

lilro
06-02-2012, 6:45 PM
WTF does that even mean? :facepalm:

Apparently the .50AE is an undercharged .50BMG lol. But I guess that makes the 5.56 round a "more powerful version of the same small-caliber round" used to hunt mice and other small rodents.

Librarian
06-02-2012, 6:49 PM
According to the ATF there is no distinction made regarding legal status of the straw recipient.

Its icing on the indictment cake if the person being supplied to has a record;but that's not the crime in question here. The violation is perjury against the Federal form 4473 when the buyer marks "yes" to the first question asking if the buyer is the intended recipient, knowing full well at the time of the transaction they were going to sell the weapon to someone else. It doesn't matter if the person getting the weapon has a record or not, because the buyer is on the hook for lying to Uncle Sam.


Quoted from the Horse's Mouth:

However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case. Additionally make sure you familiarize yourself and anyone who purchases a firearm as a gift with the rules associated with the ATF I 5300.2 pamphlet.

-http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-4.html

I do not understand the 'straw purchaser" here. I though that a "straw purchaser" bought a firearm and then just GAVE IT to someone that could not purchase the firearm legally. These guys sold the firearms through a FFL to the other person. So the person buying the firearm had to have a back ground check. ??????

SilverTauron had the answer immediately above your post.

I'm not quite sure why that specific problem is so hard for many to grasp. It's certainly quite technical, and a crime only because the law says so, but lots of gun laws are that way.

eaglemike
06-02-2012, 6:54 PM
Straw purchaser used to mean buying for a prohibited person. Now it means buying for anyone else if the ATF decides it does. What about a relative? Ok, does it matter which relative? What about if I pay for a gun for a friend for his birthday, but he does the 4473? OK, what if he's out of town (maybe duty in the sandbox) and it's a deal, so I do it in my name then PPT it to him? Where is the line?

Too bad, this will cost a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, like producing documents in F&F. The ATF will use this for publicity and promotion of their role.

SilverTauron
06-02-2012, 7:34 PM
Straw purchaser used to mean buying for a prohibited person. Now it means buying for anyone else if the ATF decides it does. What about a relative? Ok, does it matter which relative? What about if I pay for a gun for a friend for his birthday, but he does the 4473? OK, what if he's out of town (maybe duty in the sandbox) and it's a deal, so I do it in my name then PPT it to him? Where is the line?

If it were up to the ATF, I believe all of us would be at risk of indictment the moment we sold a gun for any reason.

The thing which prevents the ATF from tossing us in court on trumped up Straw Purchase charges is the lack of evidence. There's no concrete proof the weapon was re-sold after the initial transaction, so charging someone with that crime is a no-win scenario for the Feds in most of America. The thing about California is that every gun transaction & transfer has to be documented, which makes proving a case of misconduct exponentially easier for the prosecution. If these charges stick in court, were I a resident in a state which registered arms id take very careful steps to avoid *a HINT* of a straw purchase. Unlike in Texas, all the Feds need to do in a place like NJ or CA would be to pull the state transfer records, and after that its an open and shut case. You can say all day on the stand the gun you bought for your wife was a gift, but if theres a piece of paper which says her gun once belonged to you yesterday-or if motive is provide in that she couldn't legally buy it anyway- its bad news bears.





Too bad, this will cost a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, like producing documents in F&F. The ATF will use this for publicity and promotion of their role.
If the ATF is anything like other government agencies, right now its probably hell on earth at HQ. With F&F going on , everyone and their brothers looking for reasons to justify staying off the chopping block. You see it in the private industry too-soon as the words "layoff" start being whispered at the water cooler, people start backstabbing each other trying to impress 'Da Boss' so as to avoid the axe. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the order's gone out to field agents to make any case they can -or else- so long as it can stick in court , with the goal that eventually the Top Dog can say in front of Congress "yeah, that Mexican business sucks, but hey!We arrested X number of straw purchasers last month!".

Now is not the time to play games, not with the ATF looking for reasons to justify its existence in the face of F&F related backlash.

postal
06-02-2012, 7:35 PM
Im just waiting for a full investigation that shows bloomberg or eric holder was behind this from the get go.

dantodd
06-02-2012, 7:43 PM
It looks to me like the Feds are charging the officers with a classic Straw Purchase rap. The LEO's asserted on the Federal Form 4473 that they were the actual buyers and owners of the transferred firearms, when in fact they intended to sell the weapons to someone else.

That is not the definition of a straw purchase. buying a gun with the intention of selling it is sometimes a good collecting choice. For example, of I really really want that Wearherby my friend left to his widow but she wants to sell all 5 guns at the same time I might buy them all to get the Wearherby with the intent of selling off the other 4 guns I have no particular interest in. I don't believe that I have committed a straw purchase on the other 4 guns.

Now, if I am a cop visiting my buddy the FFL and he says: "Can you DROS an LCP for me? I'll give you $100 off your next gun if you do this for me." and then the FFL actually pays for the gun and I never put my own money into the gun, THAT is a straw purchase. I have no idea if this is what happened so the transactions may have been completely legal, I am only pointing out the having an intent to sell a gun doesn't automatically make its purchase a "straw purchase" but there are other facts in the case that might fit the facts of the indictment.

SilverTauron
06-02-2012, 7:59 PM
That is not the definition of a straw purchase. buying a gun with the intention of selling it is sometimes a good collecting choice. For example, of I really really want that Wearherby my friend left to his widow but she wants to sell all 5 guns at the same time I might buy them all to get the Wearherby with the intent of selling off the other 4 guns I have no particular interest in. I don't believe that I have committed a straw purchase on the other 4 guns.

Now, if I am a cop visiting my buddy the FFL and he says: "Can you DROS an LCP for me? I'll give you $100 off your next gun if you do this for me." and then the FFL actually pays for the gun and I never put my own money into the gun, THAT is a straw purchase. I have no idea if this is what happened so the transactions may have been completely legal, I am only pointing out the having an intent to sell a gun doesn't automatically make its purchase a "straw purchase" but there are other facts in the case that might fit the facts of the indictment.


According to the definition of the ATF, a straw purchase is committed when the initial buyer lies on the 4473. Intent comes into play because the ATF has to prove in court that when the buyer did plunk down the cash for Gun X, they did so with the INTENT of selling the weapon to a third party at the time.

In your example, if you accomplish a 4473 for every single weapon and intend to sell 4 of them at some undetermined point in the future to whomever without a price or set deal in place, that's not a set of straw purchase charges which are gonna stick.If the ATF tossed you in front of a judge for that, they and the prosecutor would get laughed right out of federal court.

If you buy those 5 weapons with deals set in place to resell 4 of them at the time you fill out the respective 4473s,you have just committed 4 felonies.If there's documented evidence that you put together arrangement to sell the 4 arms to a third party -such as a DROS accomplished mere hours or the next day after the initial 4473s were done-the joke's on you, and your mailing adress for the next 20 years can wind up being Leavenworth, KS.

Such are the tightropes one walks when owning and transferring firearms.

motorhead
06-02-2012, 11:56 PM
my take is, it'll swing, not only on the profit made, but how long an interval before the weapon(s) were resold. the number of transactions also works against them. the kiss of death would be for one or more of the buyers to roll over. wouldn't be out of character for the feds to give reduced or immunity to hang the 2 cops. if any of the buyers testify that they contracted with the cops to purchase off-roster guns they're roundly buggered.

kemasa
06-03-2012, 7:08 AM
By the logic presented, a parent purchasing a firearm for their child, who is not of legal age to purchase/own a firearm is committing a straw purchase. Or what about a husband/wife buying a firearm as a gift for their spouse who is not a legally prohibited person?

Incorrect, it is not a straw purchase if it is a gift, read the instructions for the 4473. With the exception of transfers which qualify under the intrafamilial transfer and transfers between spouse, it really does not apply to CA since the end transfer would have to be done through a FFL (quite similar to what was claimed to have been done, with the exception of money).

The exception does mean that you could buy a firearm as a gift, go through the 10 day waiting period, pick up the firearm and go to another FFL to transfer the firearm who you are giving it to. It does not make much sense to do it this way due to the cost and it might raise some red flags, but it would be legal as long as it was really a gift.

Please realize that a straw purchase does not require that the actual buyer be prohibited, just that the end buyer is being hidden.

What is interesting is the site:

http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm

which says:


What is the Don't Lie for the Other Guy campaign?

A campaign led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP)"



What is a straw purchase?

A straw purchase is an illegal firearm purchase where the actual buyer of the gun, being unable to pass the required federal background check or desiring to not have his or her name associated with the transaction, uses a proxy buyer who can pass the required background check to purchase the firearm for him/her. It is highly illegal and punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison.


Based on this definition, which is from the BATF, the sale of those firearms don't qualify as a straw purchase since when the end transfer was done, the person has had their name associated with the transaction.

I do like the term "highly illegal", is there something which is "somewhat illegal"? :-)

kemasa
06-03-2012, 7:14 AM
According to the definition of the ATF, a straw purchase is committed when the initial buyer lies on the 4473. Intent comes into play because the ATF has to prove in court that when the buyer did plunk down the cash for Gun X, they did so with the INTENT of selling the weapon to a third party at the time.


Based on what I have seen, that is NOT the definition of a straw purchase. There has to be an intent to hide the end buyer, not just that it was sold to someone else.

ap3572001
06-03-2012, 7:29 AM
That is not the definition of a straw purchase. buying a gun with the intention of selling it is sometimes a good collecting choice. For example, of I really really want that Wearherby my friend left to his widow but she wants to sell all 5 guns at the same time I might buy them all to get the Wearherby with the intent of selling off the other 4 guns I have no particular interest in. I don't believe that I have committed a straw purchase on the other 4 guns.

Now, if I am a cop visiting my buddy the FFL and he says: "Can you DROS an LCP for me? I'll give you $100 off your next gun if you do this for me." and then the FFL actually pays for the gun and I never put my own money into the gun, THAT is a straw purchase. I have no idea if this is what happened so the transactions may have been completely legal, I am only pointing out the having an intent to sell a gun doesn't automatically make its purchase a "straw purchase" but there are other facts in the case that might fit the facts of the indictment.
+1!

tenpercentfirearms
06-03-2012, 7:33 AM
Based on what I have seen, that is NOT the definition of a straw purchase. There has to be an intent to hide the end buyer, not just that it was sold to someone else.

Can you cite this definition? The only definition I can find is the definition on the 4473.

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Yes/No

Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

Further, it really doesn't matter what the definition of a straw purchase is anywhere else. They are not being charged with making a straw purchase. They are being charged with lying on a 4473. The part they are claiming they lied on is "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?"

So if through a subpoena of your checking account it clearly shows you gave an officer a check in the amount of money it would take to buy a Ruger LCP right before he bought a Ruger LCP at a gun shop or you gave the gun shop that exact amount right before said officer DROSed the gun and then a few days/weeks/months later you end up PPTing the firearm from him, the Feds might have some pretty decent evidence that the officer lied on the form.

Now, in the case of Grant Early, I am not quite sure which Federal form him lied on. When he went to DROS the LCP on the 4473 he was the actual purchaser or buyer. I suspect he was singled out for political reasons.

So for those of you worried that anyone could be a straw purchaser, you can't be. If you buy five guns with the idea you might flip them and sell them and your financial records indicate that you received no payment for such items before you DROSed them or otherwise lawfully acquired them for yourself, then the ATF doesn't have much evidence. Then later on you find buyers at a gun show, on Calguns, or wherever and you still have clear financial records that you received payment after you had taken possession for them, then you should be fine. Especially if the ATF starts asking questions and everyone's stories match up that that is how that actually went down.

Again, this case has political overtones and also we are talking a larger scale of sales here. It should still serve as an excellent lesson that you do not want to lie on the 4473 by having other people or even yourself buy guns for others that aren't clearly a gift.

So to be even more clear, DO NOT HAVE YOUR COP BUDDIES BUY YOU OFF ROSTER HANDGUNS! Go the SSE route, the out of state intrafamilial transfer, or don't buy the gun at all. Even if Grant Early beats these charges, it clearly wasn't worth it.

And yes, if this stupid state didn't have the roster, none of this would have ever happened. However, the roster isn't why these people are being charged. It is lying on the 4473 that is getting them.

kemasa
06-03-2012, 8:07 AM
Can you cite this definition? The only definition I can find is the definition on the 4473.


Yes,see my other post regarding the web site led by the BATF. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8691326&postcount=163)


Further, it really doesn't matter what the definition of a straw purchase is anywhere else. They are not being charged with making a straw purchase. They are being charged with lying on a 4473. The part they are claiming they lied on is "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?"


In my opinion they were the actual buyers. While they intended to later legally transfer the firearm to another party, the end buyer was not hidden as later DROS and 4473s shows.


So if through a subpoena of your checking account it clearly shows you gave an officer a check in the amount of money it would take to buy a Ruger LCP right before he bought a Ruger LCP at a gun shop or you gave the gun shop that exact amount right before said officer DROSed the gun and then a few days/weeks/months later you end up PPTing the firearm from him, the Feds might have some pretty decent evidence that the officer lied on the form.


It depends on the meaning of the words and the intent. If it was another state and the firearm could be sold without going through a FFL, then it might fly, but since this is CA and all the other paperwork was legally done, it shows that there was no attempt to hide the transactions.

Yes, the officer bought the firearm and intended to sell the firearm, but the main point, at least to me, is that the end person submitted the required paperwork.

While it was not a smart thing to do, I personally don't think it was illegal.


...
Again, this case has political overtones and also we are talking a larger scale of sales here. It should still serve as an excellent lesson that you do not want to lie on the 4473 by having other people or even yourself buy guns for others that aren't clearly a gift.


I think it goes beyond that, which is that you are best to not do anything which could be viewed as questionable at all. It can be viewed that the officers did not lie on the form. The form does not say that you are not intending to sell the firearm later, even right away.


So to be even more clear, DO NOT HAVE YOUR COP BUDDIES BUY YOU OFF ROSTER HANDGUNS! Go the SSE route, the out of state intrafamilial transfer, or don't buy the gun at all. Even if Grant Early beats these charges, it clearly wasn't worth it.


This is good advice.


And yes, if this stupid state didn't have the roster, none of this would have ever happened. However, the roster isn't why these people are being charged. It is lying on the 4473 that is getting them.

I disagree, it is politics which is getting them. The roster IS the reason. The CA DOJ does not like people who figure out ways around what they want, not what the law says.

tenpercentfirearms
06-03-2012, 8:32 AM
Yes,see my other post regarding the web site led by the BATF. (http://http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8691326&postcount=163)Broken link.

In my opinion they were the actual buyers. While they intended to later legally transfer the firearm to another party, the end buyer was not hidden as later DROS and 4473s shows.

It depends on the meaning of the words and the intent. If it was another state and the firearm could be sold without going through a FFL, then it might fly, but since this is CA and all the other paperwork was legally done, it shows that there was no attempt to hide the transactions.

Yes, the officer bought the firearm and intended to sell the firearm, but the main point, at least to me, is that the end person submitted the required paperwork.I am not sure how you think a jury is going to see it your way.

Did that officer use his money to purchase the firearm? No, the officer did not. Please see exhibit A, the end user's checking records. The end user did not write a check to the officer. The end user wrote the check to the gun shop directly. The officer did not use their money to purchase this handgun. The officer did not use their money, they used the end user's money to purchase the handgun. The officer was not the purchaser, claimed they were on the 4473, and lied about it.

Or the end user wrote a check to the officer before the officer started DROS. The officer paid the gun shop with that money they received before starting DROS, so it was actually the end user's money and therefore the officer was not the actual purchaser.

Kemasa you would be correct if the officer used their own money to actually purchase the firearm. However, I am willing to bet good money that these officers were not using their own money to fund their purchases, but Bob Snellings or Grant Early's money. The ATF subpoenaed those records, can easily prove those officers did not use their own money to make the purchases, and that is why they are being charged.

That is the moral of the story here. Expect your records to get subpoenaed and expect the trail to be followed.

OFFICERS! DO NOT BUY OFF ROSTER HANDGUNS FOR PEOPLE! GUN DEALERS TELL PEOPLE NOT TO DO IT!

NYsteveZ
06-03-2012, 8:47 AM
my take is, it'll swing, not only on the profit made, but how long an interval before the weapon(s) were resold. the number of transactions also works against them. the kiss of death would be for one or more of the buyers to roll over. wouldn't be out of character for the feds to give reduced or immunity to hang the 2 cops. if any of the buyers testify that they contracted with the cops to purchase off-roster guns they're roundly buggered.

Unfortunately, this is correct. It all comes down to the picture that is painted for the jury.
I dont know if it has been mentioned yet due to the speculation as to what MAY happen, but I can almost guarantee what WILL happen...Has anyone here purchased a firearm from Snellings? It may not even be related to the two officers, but I bet the ATF will do an audit of some type on every transaction that went down. If you did, you might get a visit from the ATF.
I know in the military, it was a big no-no to sell our issued gear, mainly night vision goggles and certain scopes, but these guns can be legally purchased just one state over. This case is rediculous and a huge waste of time and money, not to mention a shame busting these guys.
One last-There is a similar law for cars. If you sell a certain amount in a year, the DMV considers you a dealer, meaning you need a dealers license. Once again, the PRK wanting $$$$$.

kemasa
06-03-2012, 9:09 AM
Broken link.


Fixed.


I am not sure how you think a jury is going to see it your way.

Did that officer use his money to purchase the firearm? No, the officer did not. Please see exhibit A, the end user's checking records.


That is a bit of an issue, if true, but I have not looked at that specifically.


The end user did not write a check to the officer. The end user wrote the check to the gun shop directly.


Could you please tell me how many consignment firearms you have sold in which the buyer paid the seller directly, instead of through the FFL?


...
Kemasa you would be correct if the officer used their own money to actually purchase the firearm. However, I am willing to bet good money that these officers were not using their own money to fund their purchases, but Bob Snellings or Grant Early's money. The ATF subpoenaed those records, can easily prove those officers did not use their own money to make the purchases, and that is why they are being charged.

That is the moral of the story here. Expect your records to get subpoenaed and expect the trail to be followed.


Yes, this is an issue, but again, one of the issues with a straw purchase is the attempt to hide the end buyer, not the money.


OFFICERS! DO NOT BUY OFF ROSTER HANDGUNS FOR PEOPLE! GUN DEALERS TELL PEOPLE NOT TO DO IT!

This is good advice, but it does not mean that it is illegal, but that does not mean that it won't be a problem.

Would you consider the following to be a straw purchase?

A gun shop has a rare firearm which Bob has been wanting for a really long time. Bob does not have the money right now and is out of the Country, so he asks Steve to buy the firearm for him until he gets the money as he does not want the firearm to be sold before he can buy it. A short time late Bob gets the money, pays Steve and the firearm is legally transferred to Bob.

kemasa
06-03-2012, 9:11 AM
One last-There is a similar law for cars. If you sell a certain amount in a year, the DMV considers you a dealer, meaning you need a dealers license. Once again, the PRK wanting $$$$$.

The main difference is that you can sell a vehicle without going through a CA license car dealer.

The law regarding firearm sales was prior to the law which requires almost all firearm transfers to go through a FFL.

tenpercentfirearms
06-03-2012, 2:33 PM
Would you consider the following to be a straw purchase?

A gun shop has a rare firearm which Bob has been wanting for a really long time. Bob does not have the money right now and is out of the Country, so he asks Steve to buy the firearm for him until he gets the money as he does not want the firearm to be sold before he can buy it. A short time late Bob gets the money, pays Steve and the firearm is legally transferred to Bob.

This has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about. It is apples to oranges.

However, to answer your question, if Steve buys the firearm with his own money and Bob makes payments until it is payed off to Steve, no crime has been committed. If Bob sends the money to Steve and then Steve buys the firearm for Bob, Steve is not the actual purchaser and creates legal liability by answering Yes to a question that should actually be answered no.

Again, there is a real problem here with what the common definition of a straw purchase is and what the 4473 says. However, people need to understand it and take it into account, especially if using credit cards and checks to pay for things.

dantodd
06-03-2012, 3:04 PM
This has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about. It is apples to oranges.

However, to answer your question, if Steve buys the firearm with his own money and Bob makes payments until it is payed off to Steve, no crime has been committed. If Bob sends the money to Steve and then Steve buys the firearm for Bob, Steve is not the actual purchaser and creates legal liability by answering Yes to a question that should actually be answered no.


We don't really know if this has nothing to do with this case. The indictment didn't specify when and how money changed hands. I believe that you are right and such a transaction should be clean and I really hope that this case solidifies this interpretation of "actual buyer" but I am not confident that the Feds are working in such a narrow interpretation.

kemasa
06-03-2012, 3:21 PM
So if Bob is out of town and Steve says that he will buy the firearm for Bob and then do the transfer when Bob gets back, you are claiming that is illegal?

You think that when the money is paid is critical, but that the proper paperwork to transfer the firearm before it changes hands is not?

What is also interesting is the court's view that a straw purchase is to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are prohibited, not from those who are not.

tenpercentfirearms
06-03-2012, 9:11 PM
So if Bob is out of town and Steve says that he will buy the firearm for Bob and then do the transfer when Bob gets back, you are claiming that is illegal?If Steve uses his money and the gun is in his name, then he is the actual buyer. If Steve uses Bob's money, then he isn't the actual buyer. Not sure why this concept is so difficult.

Bob gave Steve Bob's money to buy Bob a gun. So Steve is the actual buyer of the gun? That makes absolutely zero sense.

And I still don't understand how you guys don't understand that lying on the 4473 happens at the time of purchase, not at some later point in time. It seriously boggles my mind. Maybe you should read the 4473 again, specifically the certification part where it states if you answer yes to 11.a and you are not the actual buyer it is a crime punishable as a felony.

No where and I mean no where on a 4473 does it state that it is okay to purchase firearms for others as long as they do the proper paperwork later. NO WHERE!

However, I am done here. If yall want to go out and play these games, you get what you deserve. Again, ask the four guys in Sacramento how this game is working out for them. And I really like Bob Snellings and Grant Early so I hope they beat it.

dantodd
06-03-2012, 9:21 PM
If Steve uses his money and the gun is in his name, then he is the actual buyer. If Steve uses Bob's money, then he isn't the actual buyer. Not sure why this concept is so difficult.

Bob gave Steve Bob's money to buy Bob a gun. So Steve is the actual buyer of the gun? That makes absolutely zero sense.

And I still don't understand how you guys don't understand that lying on the 4473 happens at the time of purchase, not at some later point in time. It seriously boggles my mind. Maybe you should read the 4473 again, specifically the certification part where it states if you answer yes to 11.a and you are not the actual buyer it is a crime punishable as a felony.

No where and I mean no where on a 4473 does it state that it is okay to purchase firearms for others as long as they do the proper paperwork later. NO WHERE!



Um... I think we vehemently agree. Perhaps you weren't speaking to me but it seems like it. The problem is that there seems to be some question as to whose money was used to buy the guns. If in fact it was not the money of the person filling out the 4473 then they committed perjury on the form. If it was the money of the person filling out the 4473 then it can't be a straw purchase unless the intent was to conceal the ultimate purchaser, which can't be the case in an otherwise legal transfe in CA.

12voltguy
06-03-2012, 9:22 PM
If Steve uses his money and the gun is in his name, then he is the actual buyer. If Steve uses Bob's money, then he isn't the actual buyer. Not sure why this concept is so difficult.
Bob gave Steve Bob's money to buy Bob a gun. So Steve is the actual buyer of the gun? That makes absolutely zero sense.

And I still don't understand how you guys don't understand that lying on the 4473 happens at the time of purchase, not at some later point in time. It seriously boggles my mind. Maybe you should read the 4473 again, specifically the certification part where it states if you answer yes to 11.a and you are not the actual buyer it is a crime punishable as a felony.

No where and I mean no where on a 4473 does it state that it is okay to purchase firearms for others as long as they do the proper paperwork later. NO WHERE!

However, I am done here. If yall want to go out and play these games, you get what you deserve. Again, ask the four guys in Sacramento how this game is working out for them. And I really like Bob Snellings and Grant Early so I hope they beat it.

look, you can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a Bulls ***, but I would rather take the butchers word for it.

tenpercentfirearms
06-03-2012, 9:24 PM
Um... I think we vehemently agree. Perhaps you weren't speaking to me but it seems like it. The problem is that there seems to be some question as to whose money was used to buy the guns. If in fact it was not the money of the person filling out the 4473 then they committed perjury on the form. If it was the money of the person filling out the 4473 then it can't be a straw purchase unless the intent was to conceal the ultimate purchaser, which can't be the case in an otherwise legal transfe in CA.

You are correct, we are in complete agreement. I just now figured that out as some of your earlier posts were unclear to me. That might be my fault though. Like myself it might be hard to tell when you are being devil's advocate and when you are not.

WW2Buff
06-04-2012, 2:39 AM
My dad sent me the link yesterday. I really hope Snelling doesn't get in much if any trouble. I always liked working with him. Good guy.

jre
06-04-2012, 7:12 AM
My dad sent me the link yesterday. I really hope Snelling doesn't get in much if any trouble. I always liked working with him. Good guy.

+1 Really nice guy. I hope everything works out for him. Has anyone heard from him? Feel bad for him and he just retired not to long ago.

Dump1567
06-04-2012, 9:07 AM
Couldn't the ATF now go on a witch hunt using the DROS system to track the buying and selling of firearms in this state? Handing out indictments on those they've felt have bought and sold too many handguns within a given time frame (dealing without a License)?

I'm sure there's a computer program associated with the database that can list the top gun buying individuals in this state. This is one of those scenarios when having a 1 in 30 day exemption could hurt you if you've bought and sold too many guns.

Is it even legal to use the DROS system this way? I thought that was the big fear when we started filling out 4473's that Big Brother would be tracking people?

Untamed1972
06-04-2012, 9:44 AM
Couldn't the ATF now go on a witch hunt using the DROS system to track the buying and selling of firearms in this state? Handing out indictments on those they've felt have bought and sold too many handguns within a given time frame (dealing without a License)?

I'm sure there's a computer program associated with the database that can list the top gun buying individuals in this state. This is one of those scenarios when having a 1 in 30 day exemption could hurt you if you've bought and sold too many guns.

Is it even legal to use the DROS system this way? I thought that was the big fear when we started filling out 4473's that Big Brother would be tracking people?

Wouldn't it be easier to just do a query of all DROS's showing the LEO-expemtion for purchase, then determine if the guns purchased were off-roster, then look to see if/when any of those were transfered to someone else? (assuming the system can do that)

kemasa
06-04-2012, 9:52 AM
If Steve uses his money and the gun is in his name, then he is the actual buyer. If Steve uses Bob's money, then he isn't the actual buyer. Not sure why this concept is so difficult.


Really? If Steve borrowed money from Bob because he wanted to buy a firearm which was a good deal,it is illegal?


Bob gave Steve Bob's money to buy Bob a gun. So Steve is the actual buyer of the gun? That makes absolutely zero sense.


It depends on what the whole deal is. You can't just look at the money. Please show me where on the 4473 it talks just about money, to throw your argument back at you.


And I still don't understand how you guys don't understand that lying on the 4473 happens at the time of purchase, not at some later point in time. It seriously boggles my mind. Maybe you should read the 4473 again, specifically the certification part where it states if you answer yes to 11.a and you are not the actual buyer it is a crime punishable as a felony.


What amazing is that you don't have ANY concept of a person buying a firearm and then turning around and selling it, just like flipping a car, a house or anything else.

If it happens when the 4473 is filled out, it is quite amazing since if the person does not turn over the firearm and instead keeps it, it is still a crime, right?


No where and I mean no where on a 4473 does it state that it is okay to purchase firearms for others as long as they do the proper paperwork later. NO WHERE!


The laws regulate how you can sell a firearm, or have you missed that? You can buy a firearm and the later sell it, as long as you follow the law.

You are correct that the 4473 does not document how to sell a firearm in the future, but that is not the point of the 4473. Who says that the person is purchasing the firearm for others? They are purchasing it for themselves so that they can later sell the firearm for a profit or for some other reason.


However, I am done here. If yall want to go out and play these games, you get what you deserve. Again, ask the four guys in Sacramento how this game is working out for them. And I really like Bob Snellings and Grant Early so I hope they beat it.

How many times have you said you are done here???

I don't want to play those games, nor the other games that you seem to be willing to play or promote, as I don't want to have problems. My point is that the firearms were properly transferred at each point in time and that makes the claim it was a straw purchase questionable.

FalconLair
06-04-2012, 10:03 AM
im not even gonna touch on the law because it is so a** backwards anyway, but, i will say this:

i can understand a deputy using the opportunity to purchase off roster weapons for themselves and even in a couple of small instances, for a friend or two...BUT, when they start using it for enterprising purposes, well, i do have an issue with that, due to the negative reaction that can only come from it...LE does indeed need to get the "bigger picture" when involving themselves in these types of transactions, not because they could or could not be illegal, but they definitely leave a negative stain on LE

all this succeeds in doing now is creating a higher level of scrutiny whenever these transactions occur with LE...i've never understood the exemption anyway, but, it is what it is for whatever reason...this may simply come down to being a case where the ATF is trying to send a message out to LE that buying off roster guns for the eventual purpose of reselling them will not be allowed

Mesa Tactical
06-04-2012, 10:03 AM
This is probably not an isolated situation.
These are guys that just got caught. Pete

I recall a thread here on Calguns where someone was complaining about posts in the Marketplace or elsewhere where someone was asking, "What would you pay for a brand new unrostered handgun?" The implication was that unrostered handguns could be supplied. The point of the thread was that this was blatant dealing without a license and was going to get someone in trouble.

A good attorney will find a way to have this case delayed pending the outcome in Pena. If the Roster is ruled unconstitutional, then any violations of the roster law will be rendered as if they had never happened, thus no case.

No one is accusing them of violating the roster. It's dealing without a license and straw purchases.

What amazing is that you don't have ANY concept of a person buying a firearm and then turning around and selling it, just like flipping a car, a house or anything else.

Kemasa, that is not what is happening here. This case is not about flipping handguns, it's about taking and filling orders for handguns.

I agree with Ten Percent. My mind is also boggled that folks are having such trouble seeing the difference.

kemasa
06-04-2012, 10:05 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to just do a query of all DROS's showing the LEO-expemtion for purchase, the determine is the guns purchased were off-roster, then look to see if/when any of those were transfered to someone else? (assuming the system can do that)

In theory that would be possible, but in reality I am not sure that it would really be possible without a lot of time and effort. There is limited information which is submitted on the DROS and it does not always have the complete information.

I suspect that the CA DOJ could search for all LEO purchases, but that is going to result in extra firearms being included since not all of them would not be on certified list. Then they could look to see when those firearms were next transferred. The name used on each transfer could be different as well.

The problem is that just because the firearm was transferred a short time later does not mean anything. Perhaps the LEO did not like the firearm.

It would also be hard to determine if the firearm was actually not on the certified list due to the limited information which is on the DROS. If a Glock 17 Gen 4 was transferred, would the FFL actually list that it was a Gen4? I have not seen a Gen4, so I don't know

Untamed1972
06-04-2012, 10:16 AM
In theory that would be possible, but in reality I am not sure that it would really be possible without a lot of time and effort. There is limited information which is submitted on the DROS and it does not always have the complete information.

I suspect that the CA DOJ could search for all LEO purchases, but that is going to result in extra firearms being included since not all of them would not be on certified list. Then they could look to see when those firearms were next transferred. The name used on each transfer could be different as well.

The problem is that just because the firearm was transferred a short time later does not mean anything. Perhaps the LEO did not like the firearm.

It would also be hard to determine if the firearm was actually not on the certified list due to the limited information which is on the DROS. If a Glock 17 Gen 4 was transferred, would the FFL actually list that it was a Gen4? I have not seen a Gen4, so I don't know

Just seems like glaring examples would stand out if you pulled the LEO purchases. Someone who is purchasing large numbers of guns, or alot of the same types of guns, etc. A guy who did it one time for a buddy prolly wouldn't stand out. A guy who bought and sold 20+ in a year would attract some attn.

kemasa
06-04-2012, 10:24 AM
Looking for anyone who is buying and selling a lot of firearms should stand out. People who have two residences in two different states could do the same thing, or people moving to CA.

I have to wonder if anyone actually looks to see what can be found in the records. I have not heard of anything, but that does not really mean anything.

Solidsnake87
06-04-2012, 12:17 PM
Does ANYONE know who Snelling is being represented by or how he is doing? Snelling is a wonderful guy and always kept deals legal. Best FFL i've ever worked with.

blakdawg
06-04-2012, 6:50 PM
Does ANYONE know who Snelling is being represented by or how he is doing? Snelling is a wonderful guy and always kept deals legal. Best FFL i've ever worked with.

The case was purportedly sealed because the prosecution believed he was a flight risk if it were unsealed before he could be arrested - but he doesn't show up in the court's records yet, either. There's a note that he is to be held (initially) without bail.

The court issued six summons, but only four individuals have been identified so far. The six summons are still sealed.

More misc documents related to Early and McGowan are here:

http://cf.parrhesia.com/McGowan2.pdf

Solidsnake87
06-04-2012, 7:43 PM
Thanks! I hope he has notified the Calguns foundation. This guy is truly one of the good guys!

Fishslayer
06-04-2012, 8:24 PM
If you seriously dont think that transferring 25 (I assume off-list) handguns in four years, of which 19 were transfered within a year from purchasing them, is going to raise some flags, you're pretty ignorant or trust your brass pass waaaaaaaaaaay too much.

25 out of 41 handguns means he kept 16 of 'em. Doesn't seem really out of line. There are plenty of guys who wheel & deal guns. Maybe his finances don't let him own 41 guns at a time and he finds something he wants and offloads something else to pay for it. Maybe his safe only holds X amount. Maybe his wife put a limit on him. Someone on another forum said something like "I can own all the guns I've ever dreamed of, just not all at the same time."

The straw buyer case seems non existent and (lacking a firm legal/illegal number) the dealing without a license seems pretty thin.

I despise the brass pass and I will admit I'm jelly of the LEO exemption but in this case I hope the guys beat the rap.

FatCity67
06-06-2012, 5:49 PM
Didnt see this posted here yet but it could be somewhere in the five pages.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/cae/news/docs/2012/06-01-12McGowenOrder%20Affadavit.pdf

joe_sun
06-06-2012, 6:32 PM
Didnt see this posted here yet but it could be somewhere in the five pages.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/cae/news/docs/2012/06-01-12McGowenOrder%20Affadavit.pdf

Guess the BATFE really does surf Calguns...

Kodemonkey
06-06-2012, 6:34 PM
Didnt see this posted here yet but it could be somewhere in the five pages.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/cae/news/docs/2012/06-01-12McGowenOrder%20Affadavit.pdf

Got to page 9 and HOLE - IE - CRAAAPPP. Listing threads from Calguns on the search warrant... They ARE watching....


And how they determined who SacDep was interesting - using a cross reference from the model of the guns to the for sale forum on calguns. wow.

And he bought an XDM and sold it. Then (allegedly) bought another one 5 days after he sold the first one. Not looking good.

HowardW56
06-06-2012, 6:52 PM
Got to page 9 and HOLE - IE - CRAAAPPP. Listing threads from Calguns on the search warrant... They ARE watching....


And how they determined who SacDep was interesting - using a cross reference from the model of the guns to the for sale forum on calguns. wow.

And he bought an XDM and sold it. Then (allegedly) bought another one 5 days after he sold the first one. Not looking good.

:shock: You ever had a dobt that LE read this forum, often?

joe_sun
06-06-2012, 6:52 PM
Got to page 9 and HOLE - IE - CRAAAPPP. Listing threads from Calguns on the search warrant... They ARE watching....


And how they determined who SacDep was interesting - using a cross reference from the model of the guns to the for sale forum on calguns. wow.

And he bought an XDM and sold it. Then (allegedly) bought another one 5 days after he sold the first one. Not looking good.

It blows me away how much money and time they spent trying to get these guys for doing something that should be legal.

dantodd
06-06-2012, 7:24 PM
It blows me away how much money and time they spent trying to get these guys for doing something that should be legal.

It isn't about what "should" be legal. It is about what is legal and how we go about fixing bad laws. Generally we don't go about fixing bad laws by utilizing those laws to line our own pockets. It is always more insidious when those charged with enforcing the laws are the same people breaking those laws.

After reading the whole thing just a few comments.

1) the case against Early seems the weakest.
2) always obscure the serial numbers of guns you post for sale.
3) it seems that the ATF is taking a pretty straightforward approach to straw sale. At least as it is related to the search warrant. I.e. only "pre-sales" are straw purchases.
4) even if you are trying to follow the law be careful of guys on CalGuns who don't try to lowball you on a for sale posting. "negotiated" a $50 discount on a $3k sale.
5) I really hope there is no attempt to implicate CGN in this whole cluster.
6) CA DoJ takes the difference between "rebuild kits" and magazines very seriously. We now know that a wooden dowel is definitely not considered "permanent" to the DoJ.

Kodemonkey
06-06-2012, 8:02 PM
:shock: You ever had a dobt that LE read this forum, often?

I guess it isn't a :TFH: when they are actually watching everything you do. I wonder what was the tip off? The guns that were found at crime scenes? I mean for them to do undercover because of a very small sale of guns... it's not like they are being transported to mexican cartels or anything. :rolleyes:

MP301
06-06-2012, 9:08 PM
I seem to remember something about a CHP officer being involved, but didnt see anything about that....

jdberger
06-06-2012, 9:24 PM
The tip off was an FFL.

See the PDF in post 193.

MP301
06-06-2012, 9:58 PM
The tip off was an FFL.

See the PDF in post 193.

If that was directed at me, I read the whole PDF and I saw that.

But what I didnt see in the AFF is any mention of a CHP officer that I know I heard mentioned in the early reports....unless of course im getting senile...in which case, nevermind...but seriously, Im hoping someone comes along who remembers something about that...

jdberger
06-06-2012, 10:16 PM
I just skimmed it and I think I saw mention of a CHP officer. Not sure until I OCR and search the text.

...and Kodemonkey asked what the tip-off was.

blakdawg
06-06-2012, 10:32 PM
If that was directed at me, I read the whole PDF and I saw that.

But what I didnt see in the AFF is any mention of a CHP officer that I know I heard mentioned in the early reports....unless of course im getting senile...in which case, nevermind...but seriously, Im hoping someone comes along who remembers something about that...

See paragraphs 179 and 180 on page 45:

http://cf.parrhesia.com/McGowan-CHP.jpg

Anti-Hero
06-07-2012, 7:35 AM
One FFL hating on another. lol

Untamed1972
06-07-2012, 8:29 AM
See paragraphs 179 and 180 on page 45:

http://cf.parrhesia.com/McGowan-CHP.jpg

So FFLs can't even buy off-roster guns for themselves?

OniKoroshi
06-07-2012, 8:36 AM
If officer puts it on consignment, doesn't that mean it would be snellings firearm since it has to be logged in?

kemasa
06-07-2012, 8:52 AM
If officer puts it on consignment, doesn't that mean it would be snellings firearm since it has to be logged in?

A consignment is a bit strange in terms of ownership. While it is in the inventory of the FFL, the original owner still has a claim on the firearm and it can also be returned to the owner by means of a DROS marked as it being returned to the owner. This means that while it would be the FFL's firearms, it is also still the original owner's firearm as well.

Anyone could buy the firearm if it is consigned and if the FFL submits the DROS as a PPT, which is normal for consignment of a firearms which is not on the certified list. This also means that the FFL is actually selling the firearm, which is the reason why sales tax has to be collected.

What is also being ignored is that these "special" firearms can be brought into the state by people moving here, by intrafamilial transfer and by other means, but that admission does not help the case. It would be interesting for each firearm to see the number of non-LEO owners, which would show something about the claims that only LEOs can have these firearms.

Kodemonkey
06-07-2012, 8:58 AM
If officer puts it on consignment, doesn't that mean it would be snellings firearm since it has to be logged in?

I don't think it works that way. If it was off roster and the FFL took it into their inventory they would have to sell it as "LEO only". But a consignment sale is still in the original owners name and it becomes a PPT from the seller to the buyer.

At least that is how I understand it, having bought a consignment gun that was an off roster pistol. The DROS showed the original owner - not the FFL. And for the ATF watching this, the original owner was deceased... his wife was selling off his guns.

kemasa
06-07-2012, 9:25 AM
I don't think it works that way. If it was off roster and the FFL took it into their inventory they would have to sell it as "LEO only". But a consignment sale is still in the original owners name and it becomes a PPT from the seller to the buyer.


Actually, it does work that way. The FFL has to take it into their inventory and it is logged into their bound book. In one sense it becomes the property of the FFL, but this does not update the CA DOJ records. A DROS worksheet would be filled out from the seller/owner and that sits and waits until a buyer is found, so that the seller does not have to come in when the buyer is found.

When it is sold, it is processed as a PPT DROS, but even a PPT is logged into the FFL's bound book and at that point it is really not owned by the seller or the buyer. If the buyer is rejected, then the seller is checked and if the seller is also rejected, the FFL has to turn over the firearm to LE.

Realize that there are Federal laws and State laws with regards to a sale of a firearm. The views don't always match between the two. Also, people have a view of who owns a firearm at various times during the process, but this does not always match with the various views. One such question is whether a FFL "owns" a firearm when it is logged into their bound book? In one sense the FFL does, but in another they might not as they might not have paid for it, so you need to separate the money from the firearm. It is kind of like a vehicle is owned by who the paperwork shows owns it, not the person who may have paid for it. There is a bit of a difference since the states maintain records of vehicle ownership, whereas with firearms, that is not always the case and in the case of CA, it is not always accurate.


At least that is how I understand it, having bought a consignment gun that was an off roster pistol. The DROS showed the original owner - not the FFL. And for the ATF watching this, the original owner was deceased... his wife was selling off his guns.

The DROS is a CA thing, whereas the bound book is Federal. What the DROS shows does not really matter in this case. The 4473 shows only that the FFL is selling the firearm, so which is it? :-)

Untamed1972
06-07-2012, 9:52 AM
I was always under the impression that a consignment, as far as the roster issue is concerned, is treated like a dealer purchase which is why you can't buy an off-roster consignment gun. For it to be a PPT both buyer and seller have to walk in together and initiate the transfer.

RazzB7
06-07-2012, 9:53 AM
Reading the PDF, I think the "smoking gun" (bad pun) for Snellings is him adding a weapon (including SER#) to his LTC before PPT paperwork was even started to transfer to him.

Kodemonkey
06-07-2012, 9:57 AM
Actually, it does work that way. The FFL has to take it into their inventory and it is logged into their bound book. In one sense it becomes the property of the FFL, but this does not update the CA DOJ records. A DROS worksheet would be filled out from the seller/owner and that sits and waits until a buyer is found, so that the seller does not have to come in when the buyer is found.

When it is sold, it is processed as a PPT DROS, but even a PPT is logged into the FFL's bound book and at that point it is really not owned by the seller or the buyer. If the buyer is rejected, then the seller is checked and if the seller is also rejected, the FFL has to turn over the firearm to LE.

Realize that there are Federal laws and State laws with regards to a sale of a firearm. The views don't always match between the two. Also, people have a view of who owns a firearm at various times during the process, but this does not always match with the various views. One such question is whether a FFL "owns" a firearm when it is logged into their bound book? In one sense the FFL does, but in another they might not as they might not have paid for it, so you need to separate the money from the firearm. It is kind of like a vehicle is owned by who the paperwork shows owns it, not the person who may have paid for it. There is a bit of a difference since the states maintain records of vehicle ownership, whereas with firearms, that is not always the case and in the case of CA, it is not always accurate.



The DROS is a CA thing, whereas the bound book is Federal. What the DROS shows does not really matter in this case. The 4473 shows only that the FFL is selling the firearm, so which is it? :-)


Thanks for all the good info!

I'm watching this thread closely... this whole thing is pretty interesting. I also am confused how ATF is using CA gun laws to go after them. Is that a normal practice? I thought that the federal government couldn't go after someone for murder because it was a state crime, isn't this kind of similar?

kemasa
06-07-2012, 9:59 AM
I was always under the impression that a consignment, as far as the roster issue is concerned, is treated like a dealer purchase which is why you can't buy an off-roster consignment gun. For it to be a PPT both buyer and seller have to walk in together and initiate the transfer.

Sorry, you have an incorrect impression. You can call the CA DOJ to ask about it. The FFL can process the transfer as a PPT or a Dealer Sale.

Also, for a PPT both need not show up at the same time. The seller can come in first and fill out a DROS worksheet, then the buyer can come in. Both need to go to the same FFL though, although some claim otherwise.

Untamed1972
06-07-2012, 10:02 AM
Thanks for all the good info!

I'm watching this thread closely... this whole thing is pretty interesting. I also am confused how ATF is using CA gun laws to go after them. Is that a normal practice? I thought that the federal government couldn't go after someone for murder because it was a state crime, isn't this kind of similar?

I believe the ATFs is trying to make the case that they falsified the 4473 form by stating they were purchaser, when in fact they were purchasing it for someone else. But because the second transfer still had to go thru an FFL it might be a tough case to make......because the second buyer was not concealed and did the legal paperwork and background check.

Untamed1972
06-07-2012, 10:04 AM
Sorry, you have an incorrect impression. You can call the CA DOJ to ask about it. The FFL can process the transfer as a PPT or a Dealer Sale.

Also, for a PPT both need not show up at the same time. The seller can come in first and fill out a DROS worksheet, then the buyer can come in. Both need to go to the same FFL though, although some claim otherwise.


Well I've never bought a consignment gun, but read plenty of people on here complaining their is an off-roster gun they want on consignment that they couldn't get it.

Just think....all this confusion could be avoided by simply doing away with the roster.

kemasa
06-07-2012, 10:10 AM
Well I've never bought a consignment gun, but read plenty of people on here complaining their is an off-roster gun they want on consignment that they couldn't get it.


It might just be that the FFL is not aware of how to process the sale or just don't want to do it that way out of fear that it could be a problem. I have asked the CA DOJ about this in the past.

In other words it is just a specific FFL thing.

Kodemonkey
06-07-2012, 10:12 AM
Reading the PDF, I think the "smoking gun" (bad pun) for Snellings is him adding a weapon (including SER#) to his LTC before PPT paperwork was even started to transfer to him.

whoops! There seems to be all kinds of mistakes these guys made. Buying a xdm, then selling it, then buying another one quickly afterwards.

Why do I feel this will create a situation that ends up screwing us all?

RazzB7
06-07-2012, 10:12 AM
LOL@one of the accused CalGuns account has listed location as "in cell block D" :rofl2:

Kodemonkey
06-07-2012, 10:22 AM
LOL@one of the accused CalGuns account has listed location as "in cell block D" :rofl2:

isn't one of them a prison guard?

RazzB7
06-07-2012, 10:24 AM
isn't one of them a prison guard?

From what I read, three of them are correctional officers (county, I think) working together on the same shift. But it is still ironically funny that he's listed as being "in cell block D".

gose
06-07-2012, 10:40 AM
whoops! There seems to be all kinds of mistakes these guys made. Buying a xdm, then selling it, then buying another one quickly afterwards.
Why do I feel this will create a situation that ends up screwing us all?

or assembling large capacity magazines in front of an undercover ATF agent and then giving it it to him as part of the sale.

After reading that affidavit, I dont have any doubts that McGowan is screwed big time...

thedrickel
06-07-2012, 11:56 AM
Wow . . . selling an open bolt KG-9 to an undercover ATF agent . . . and instructing him on how to make it full auto! That PDF is ****ing scary!

Darklyte27
06-07-2012, 2:54 PM
Wow, bob i use to use him for transfers when i lived in sac

ptoguy2002
06-07-2012, 3:05 PM
Well the Calguns usernames of those involved are now out in the open.....and now the surfing of calguns by agents is now confirmed in writing...
this keep getting better...now we know for sure that you shouldn't ask for legal advice on the internet...
....and now we know that ATF guys have calguns usernames....

mag360
06-07-2012, 3:38 PM
In the mean time, since ATF is reading this thread. All this over legal transactions at a dealer with background checks all around, but who cares about those guns missing in mexico. Going after the easy targets. As a tax payer, I would like investigations to focus on real criminals. Not transactions made with background checks.

Darklyte27
06-07-2012, 4:05 PM
In the mean time, since ATF is reading this thread. All this over legal transactions at a dealer with background checks all around, but who cares about those guns missing in mexico. Going after the easy targets. As a tax payer, I would like investigations to focus on real criminals. Not transactions made with background checks.

Very true. We and the ATF dont know for a fact the intent of these deputies that transferred the guns. that's why it will go to court etc and let 12 jurors decide if any laws were broken.

If I bought a handgun and during the 10 day wait my car broke and needed the money for repairs or didnt like the mag release of the gun and wanted to go with something else then I think I have every right to sell through a private party transfer to a legal citizen to own it. But because of what looked like a off list guns were transferred so many times then it does prompt an investigation.

I think the part where they showed the UC Agent how to assemble the high cap mag though is where a crime was committed.

Now if the seller said, you can assemble them out of state and legally use them but im not doing it here that a bit different.

All I know is that I do my best to abide by the law even when they are crazy backwards and all they do is hurt us and even kill law abiding citizens

Kodemonkey
06-07-2012, 4:07 PM
In the mean time, since ATF is reading this thread. All this over legal transactions at a dealer with background checks all around, but who cares about those guns missing in mexico. Going after the easy targets. As a tax payer, I would like investigations to focus on real criminals. Not transactions made with background checks.

You're "on the list" now man... ;)

CaliforniaLiberal
06-07-2012, 4:11 PM
Didnt see this posted here yet but it could be somewhere in the five pages.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/cae/news/docs/2012/06-01-12McGowenOrder%20Affadavit.pdf


This is really painful to read, yet horribly fascinating. Like a really bad, bloody car wreck.

Can we put up some kind of warning in the heading of each page to remind all of the poor, innocent, ignorant CalGunners that this joint is very, very public and that Law Enforcement including ATF and California DOJ are truly reading over your shoulder?

How about something like "Do Not Post Anything Here You Would Not Put In An Email You're Sending Directly to the ATF!"

Oh, Man, Oh, Man what a sorry mess.

Better to keep well away from all the gray areas in California Gun Law unless you are holding hands with a good California attorney and have lots of money to pay legal costs.

I've spent an awful amount of time hating stupid CA Gun Law, but today I'm REALLY, REALLY Hating CA Gun Law.

One way of thinking that may lead CA Gun Owners to the Gray Areas is this feeling that really stupid, unjust, corrupt Gun Laws do not deserve respect and that it feels like a sort of guerrilla resistance to "Stick it to the Man" by regularly skating through the Gray Areas and even beyond. I know this feeling well, but have managed to avoid acting on it at least since before any statute of limitations might have applied. (I mean I really have, I'm not just saying that for Law Enforcement types who are reading this.)

Here's an idea! How about if the Moderators agree to instantly squash any of those "I think I might have done something illegal, what should I do now" posts and shoot off a PM to Shut the Freak Up.

Damn, this is really painful to read.

mag360
06-07-2012, 4:16 PM
anyone's ip even reading this forum is "on the list". California is trying to make a distinction between guns that does not exist, that is what got all this started. No roster, no need for "off roster" ppt. Just another example of laws ensnaring "the good guys". If he did in fact assemble that mag well I guess they will at least get him for that.

dantodd
06-07-2012, 4:18 PM
Very true. We and the ATF dont know for a fact the intent of these deputies that transferred the guns. that's why it will go to court etc and let 12 jurors decide if any laws were broken.

If I bought a handgun and during the 10 day wait my car broke and needed the money for repairs or didnt like the mag release of the gun and wanted to go with something else then I think I have every right to sell through a private party transfer to a legal citizen to own it. But because of what looked like a off list guns were transferred so many times then it does prompt an investigation.


Read the affidavit carefully. The transactions that were similar to these were treated as evidence of the alleged crime of dealing without a license and the legality of the transfers were not in question. It was the "special orders" for LCPs and the weapon that was added to Snelling's LTC before the officer even DROS'ed it that were evidence of alleged "straw purchases."

Gray Peterson
06-07-2012, 4:24 PM
And people wonder why we resist answering legal questions on civil matters that gives a leg up to CALDOJ, ATFE, & the US Attorney.

FatCity67
06-07-2012, 4:30 PM
This is really painful to read, yet horribly fascinating. Like a really bad, bloody car wreck.

Can we put up some kind of warning in the heading of each page to remind all of the poor, innocent, ignorant CalGunners that this joint is very, very public and that Law Enforcement including ATF and California DOJ are truly reading over your shoulder?

How about something like "Do Not Post Anything Here You Would Not Put In An Email You're Sending Directly to the ATF!"

Oh, Man, Oh, Man what a sorry mess.

Better to keep well away from all the gray areas in California Gun Law unless you are holding hands with a good California attorney and have lots of money to pay legal costs.

I've spent an awful amount of time hating stupid CA Gun Law, but today I'm REALLY, REALLY Hating CA Gun Law.

One way of thinking that may lead CA Gun Owners to the Gray Areas is this feeling that really stupid, unjust, corrupt Gun Laws do not deserve respect and that it feels like a sort of guerrilla resistance to "Stick it to the Man" by regularly skating through the Gray Areas and even beyond. I know this feeling well, but have managed to avoid acting on it at least since before any statute of limitations might have applied. (I mean I really have, I'm not just saying that for Law Enforcement types who are reading this.)

Here's an idea! How about if the Moderators agree to instantly squash any of those "I think I might have done something illegal, what should I do now" posts and shoot off a PM to Shut the Freak Up.

Damn, this is really painful to read.

Think how I felt when I was doing a google search for Sacramento gun shops and ran across it. I was like WTF?

Then I read it and bingo made the connection to this thread.

What really amazed me is that no one had posted it nor was it hyperlinked in any of the posted news stories.

Ran across it completely by accident.

blakdawg
06-07-2012, 4:32 PM
McGowan is scheduled for arraignment tomorrow on the state law charges in Sacramento County Superior Court if anyone's local and feels like going to watch.

Hearing Future:
Date Time Department Location Reason
06/08/2012 10:30 AM Department 08 Downtown Courthouse - 720 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ARRAIGN

Cali-Shooter
06-07-2012, 4:53 PM
The federal investigation led Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, to propose legislation to close what he calls a loophole in the state's "unsafe handguns" law, passed in 2001.

Peace officers and members of the military are required to use a registered firearms dealer if they want to sell their privately owned weapons. But current law does not require the dealer to make sure the ultimate buyer is also eligible to own handguns that aren't on the Department of Justice's list of approved weapons.

Dickinson said his AB2460 would require dealers to check whether weapons are considered "unsafe handguns," and sell them only to other law enforcement officials or members of the military who are exempted under the law. The bill passed the Assembly in May and is awaiting action in the Senate.

Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, another enemy of the citizenry and freedom.

Darklyte27
06-07-2012, 4:59 PM
Read the affidavit carefully. The transactions that were similar to these were treated as evidence of the alleged crime of dealing without a license and the legality of the transfers were not in question. It was the "special orders" for LCPs and the weapon that was added to Snelling's LTC before the officer even DROS'ed it that were evidence of alleged "straw purchases."

I tried, but 64 pages on a 4 inch screen phone is hard.

So there is evidence that point to items ordered before a actual purchase.
As a Law abiding citizen I wouldnt be doing that stuff.

thedrickel
06-07-2012, 6:06 PM
It looks bad for Snellings - he listed a gun on his CCW application before the first (LE) purchaser even started the DROS at Snellings Firearms (and then PPT'd to Bob after the LEO's 10 days were up).

Intimid8tor
06-07-2012, 6:09 PM
Just finished reading all that.

I don't think the purchases are straw purchases as defined by federal law but I will not be surprised that a jury convicts them of it.

Dealing without a license though appears to be documented well assuming all the evidence and facts are correct. Buying 5 of the same gun then ppt 4 of them or buy, then sell, then buy the same and sell again paints an ugly picture.

bwiese
06-07-2012, 6:14 PM
Wonder if they're using the right serial #s on guns.

Slides do move around, and some guns have SNs on their slides and frames.

NoJoke
06-07-2012, 6:50 PM
...I'm late to the party. No need to post what's been posted a few zillion times.

markw
06-07-2012, 7:03 PM
Remember boys and girls, a straw purchase has nothing to do with if a person is prohibited or if the firearm is restricted in some way. If the person buying the firearm is not the actual purchaser or transferee and checks yes that he is, he has lied on the 4473 which is a crime.
And here is an ATF explanation of the matter.

http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-4.html

Except, they legally bought the guns then legally ppt'd them. The only thing I can see that they might have done wrong was exceed the 6 transfers per year, it was over a 5 year period, so the numbers are right at the 6 per year. If they sold a few per transaction then they should be fine. Looks like a witch hunt to me. There was no straw purchase as they were sold through a ppt.

RobG
06-07-2012, 7:25 PM
Hmmm, how would purchasing dozens of off list pistols then turning around and selling them immediately raise an eyebrow:rolleyes:

highpowermatch
06-07-2012, 7:39 PM
THEY are exempt from the roster......to use that exemption to purchase product only they are allowed to purchase by means of their gov't position and then resell them to the public at a profit is peddling the power of their office.

I dont disagree with anything else you are saying regarding the screwed up roster law. That does not change the fact that for an officer to "deal without a license" by means of his badge is an abuse of power or position and opens the door for all other manner of corruption, and influence peddling etc.

When you work in public service there are certain things you just dont do. Some public servants grasp that......some do not. It is generally looked down upon or outright illegal to personally profit from the privileges of your public service job.

XD45 GAP for $400? No profit there, the other prices mentioned in the search warrant seemed reasonable. It could be likely they wanted to try out a bunch of gear and sell off what they didn't desire to keep.

markw
06-07-2012, 8:00 PM
Hmmm, how would purchasing dozens of off list pistols then turning around and selling them immediately raise an eyebrow:rolleyes:

6 transfers per year. The law doesn't say how long you have to own them. It's not about the spirit of the law, it's about the letter of the law.

dantodd
06-07-2012, 8:58 PM
Except, they legally bought the guns then legally ppt'd them. The only thing I can see that they might have done wrong was exceed the 6 transfers per year, it was over a 5 year period, so the numbers are right at the 6 per year. If they sold a few per transaction then they should be fine. Looks like a witch hunt to me. There was no straw purchase as they were sold through a ppt.

You should read the warrant affidavit. If all the facts are as described it is hard to say some of these weren't straw purchases.

jdberger
06-07-2012, 9:16 PM
You should read the warrant affidavit. If all the facts are as described it is hard to say some of these weren't straw purchases.

Read enough warrant affidavits, complaints and charging documents and you realize that there's a bit of spin in the writing.

These charges may be true. They may be overstated. But we'll have to wait a bit before finding out.

gose
06-07-2012, 9:36 PM
Except, they legally bought the guns then legally ppt'd them. The only thing I can see that they might have done wrong was exceed the 6 transfers per year, it was over a 5 year period, so the numbers are right at the 6 per year. If they sold a few per transaction then they should be fine. Looks like a witch hunt to me. There was no straw purchase as they were sold through a ppt.

Legal by who's definition, yours? The ATF and DOJ seem to disagree...

Also, just because it was a ppt, and/or went through an FFL, doesnt automatically make a transfer legal.

Im not saying that the roster, or only being allowed 5-6 transfers / year, arent stupid restrictions, but these guys are morons, they (most likely) broke the law and now they're going to have to pay the price.

bobomb
06-07-2012, 9:58 PM
i really hope it goes to trial they should put the law on trial

but i know that they will plead to some bogus charge and do not time after it dies down a bit maybe if some other newsworthy case comes up

it is to the defendants advantage to delay this as much as possible as the powers that be will keep looking at how thin their case is

cause if they were unqualified buyers why did the dros system allow them to purchase the items

truthseeker
06-07-2012, 10:07 PM
More: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/01/4531329/feds-expected-to-announce-indictments.html#disqus_thread%23storylink=cpy

Is this the crime in Daly City they are reffering too?

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_20538828/report-shots-fired-three-injured-petaluma

If so, seems like they traced those firearms REAL QUICK!

trashman
06-08-2012, 5:50 AM
Very interesting read. This is gonna be an interesting trial (unless somebody pleads out), and it will be especially interesting how the jury handles the technicality and complexity of the laws involved.

--Neill

BBBOBBB
06-08-2012, 6:14 AM
I am a little late with it but this is Roseville take on their guy:


A Roseville police officer investigated for alleged illegal firearms sales will not be charged, the U.S. Attorney’s office announced Friday.

According to an affidavit released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Christopher Kjellberg was being investigated as an alleged “straw purchaser” of firearms in a case involving several area law enforcement officers.

A straw purchase is defined as purchasing firearms that are only available to law enforcement with the intent of selling the weapons to average citizens.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives began the investigation in November and the U.S. Attorney’s Office handed down four indictments Friday.

Kjellberg was not one of them.

“He hasn’t been charged and we don’t plan on charging him,” said Lauren Horwood, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of California. “The investigation is closed.”

Ryan McGowan, 31, and Thomas Lu, 42, both Sacramento sheriff’s deputies, were indicted Friday and charged with engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license.

Federal Firearms Licensee Robert Snellings, 61, of Rancho Murieta and owner of Snellings Firearms in Sacramento, and Ulysses Simpson Grant Early IV, 36, of Sacramento, were also named in the indictment and charged with conspiracy.

“It was determined the best thing to do was to charge these four after the investigation was finished,” Horwood said.

According to the affidavit, McGowan and Lu purchased “off-list” firearms, meaning they are only available for purchase by law enforcement officers, with the intent of selling them to private citizens.

The guns were then sold to Snellings and Early, a private citizen, according to the indictment.

Kjellberg, who was not connected to McGowan or Lu in any way, was being investigated for five private party transactions of off-list weapons, according to the affidavit.

At least one of those transactions involved Snellings Firearms, according to the affidavit.

“These are not legal guns for the general public to buy,” said Roseville Police Chief Daniel Hahn. “So therefore, the general public will pay more for them, typically.”

Kjellberg, a patrol officer, resigned from the Roseville Police Department shortly after the investigation was announced, Hahn said.

Hahn said the fact that Kjellberg was not charged doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t do anything wrong.

“This officer resigned very early on, which I think was the right thing for him to do,” Hahn said. “Whether he was charged or not, a police department needs to have the trust of the community and breaking the law erodes that trust.”

Toby Lewis can be reached at tobyl@goldcountrymedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @TobyLewis_RsvPT.