|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
4473 Actual Purchaser
I've not seen much discussion regarding the CO court case in which the purchaser, initially charged with a "straw purchase", had the case tossed at the probable cause hearing.
The article - https://www.coloradopolitics.com/new...0592c9b54.html Court decision - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...mj-00167-0.pdf "Defendant is charged in connection with the purchase of firearms on January 19, 2019 from 1st Liberty Firearms located at 5700 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado. The criminal complaint alleges that, on that date, Defendant filled out an ATF Form 4473, Firearm Transactions Record, stating that he was the actual buyer of the firearm when,in fact, he knew he was not the actual bona fide buyer of the firearm." "Defendant had purchased one hundred and six (106) firearms from 1st Liberty Firearms over the period from January 2018 through May 2019. Id. at ¶ 16. Defendant had told the owner that his intent in purchasing the firearms was to take them to Africa and he was trying “to get into the gun business in Africa.” The court acknowledged the buyer may have committed other offenses not charged and dismissed the applicability of "Abramski" concluding - "In this instance, four points lead me to a conclusion. First, there was no intention by Congress with this statute to regulate the secondary gun market. Second, the ATF instructions on the ATF Form 4473 fail to give any guidance as to whether a subsequent potential resale of a gun makes a purchaser something other than the “actual transferee/buyer.” The form is ambiguous on this point. Third, the United States in oral argument in "Abramski" conceded that a gun buyer who buys a gun with the intention to resell nevertheless qualifies as an actual buyer. And fourth, the reasonable inference from the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was that Defendant purchased the guns himself for resale in Mali." Does this decision go anywhere outside CO? Was the defendant helped by being someone outside and perhaps not returning to the US - out of sight out of mind? If one avoids a "being in the business of" can this moot the "actual purchaser" admonition to the point of being unenforceable? Can ATF simply change the 4473 to more restrictive language without legislative action? After about 50 years of buying guns I've learned to play by the rules. That the rules sometimes change is interesting to discuss. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Thread is in General Guns http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1678615 where most criminal case threads wind up.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|