Locked On Target

[fiddletown]

...Once again your anti-2A agenda is showing itself. You may think you support gun rights, but I keep reading this, "gun rights are ok for me...the rich guy, but you little people needs regulations" in between the lines of your post. You are surly a very intelligent person who has been classical educated. You are the person we need to fear the most...the NRAs equivalent to the RINO. Your logic and ethics would strip me of my rights in a microsecond if you gained power...

Don't know where you've read that. Some things about my RKBA credentials:

• I currently work with a group of instructors here. We put on NRA Basic Handgun classes every month. None of us receive any compensation. Our class fees are set to only cover our costs, e. g., range fees, ammunition, the materials we buy to give to students, etc. In the four years I've been part of the group, we've had on the order of 350 students go through our program.
  
  
• In May of 2010 I worked as an assistant instructor, at his invitation, in Massad Ayoob's MAG40 in Sierra Vista, Arizona. I received no compensation and in fact paid all my expenses out of my pocket.
  
  
• Over a period of about ten years, I helped teach, without compensation, beginning wing shooting classes at a local club and helped coach our youth Scholastic Clay Target Program kids. During that time I helped introduce hundreds of people, including many kids, to guns and shooting.
  
  
• I of course contribute financially to various RKBA organizations, including the NRA, SAF and CGF. I've also helped draft proposed statutory language as part of gun rights lobbying efforts.

As far as "needing regulations", I've never said that either. But the laws exist. I have pointed, and will continue to point, out what those laws are and how they work. By understanding what the laws are and how they work we can (1) avoid the risks associated with violating the law; (2) look for ways to do what we want to do without risking violating the law; and (3) consider ways the laws could be changed to make things more to our liking.

...I'll tell my student daughter and my non-working wife they no longer have the right to buy firearms. You need to tell your family. Don't worry, I'm sure they will understand its for the best that they NOT be allowed to buy firearms since it may cause crime...

Give your student daughter gifts of money so she can buy her own guns. Or give her gifts of guns that you've bought for her with your money.

And your non-working wife can buy her own guns with your community property money. As far as the law is concerned, that money is as much hers as it is yours.

As far as "not allowed", the point is that the law is what it is. It's important to understand what it is and how it actually works, so that you can look for ways to accomplish your purposes without running afoul of the law.

A lot of lawyers make a lot of money trying to get people out of messes they got themselves into because, like you, they thought they understood the law, but really did not. If you want to risk someday helping make one of those lawyers rich, be my guest.

...@ Pezhead, meet fiddletown, he will be deciding your rights from now on. I am sure your life will be better now that he can regulate your use of the B.O.R.

Of course that's utter nonsense. I don't decide what your rights are. The laws enacted by Congress and state legislatures, and the ways those laws are applied by the courts, are what affect the consequences of your actions. I just understand and explain how all that works.

[dieselpower]

yeah I know man, once I pay a whore I can rape her... I know where your logic comes from. I can buy guns for my child as long as I work... our rights are tied to my employment in the big machine... money talks, BS walks into jail where all slaves belong...

thanx for the update on your Jimbo credincials...your actions and words mean little. I know plenty of life long NRA supporters who host major events and contribute huge amounts of time and effort for the cause...they also say I don't have a right to own an AR15, AK47 or high capacity magazines.

good day sir.
Diesel.

[Apec]

I don't understand what is so difficult about this. Did we forget about intra-familial transfers or what? Some sort of registration is involved for the end-recipient anyways, via IFT or PPT.

I've got friends who owned handguns that they procured via intra-familial transfer (granted their folks weren't antis and generous enough to do so).

Some people are reading into this too deeply. Age 18 and HSC, no felony/controlled substance/court order/etc issues? You're good to go.

And here are a few forum threads on the topic.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=453000

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=383832

[dieselpower]

^ He is pushing an agenda. There is a surge in firearm owners to "tighten up" the ranks. They feel the Brady Camp is gaining ground and the best way is to support ideology that calms Brady supporters down. Supporting money trail investigations is one of those illogical things. They are trying to close the "gun show loop hole." Which we all know there is NO SUCH F-ING thing. Its simply not and never was part of the GCA or NFA to control the giving or selling of standard firearms between family and in some cases friends. PPTs and gifts have been legal since the dawn of firearms, and some day that will not be the case if this doesn't stop.

Everytime you hear the BS about a straw buy we should ALL fight that illogical statement.

The day it becomes "common knowledge" that buying a gun as a gift is a straw-buy is the day they make a law making sure that is the case. The spreading of that FUD is how they desensitize the nation...AND GUN OWNERS....to the new law coming down the road.

The source of the money doesn't matter and should NEVER be a factor in the investigation... but there are those who feel you can not claim rape, if you asked for money before the sex... Its the same type of flawed and disgusting logic just in reverse. Poor people, People with no income, People with limits on their funds can not claim gift nor can they claim to be the buyer if they can not show they are the sole source of the funds used.

I don't care what a Judge, a DA or the Brady camp says.

The day an FFL asks for your last years tax return or a certified copy of your last two paycheck...FOR HIS RECORDS...YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE NEW LAW... you can point to fiddletown's logic as the reason. Don't worry, I am sure the first few years stay-home spouses and children who are still in school will be allowed to use the families workhorse...with his or her consent. Because we all know an 18 year old child's 2A Right is tied to their parents political beliefs..the kids of liberals don't have a right to choose for themselves. Spouses don't either.

[fiddletown]

I don't understand what is so difficult about this. Did we forget about intra-familial transfers or what? ...

Intrafamilial transfer can work great. Mom buys a gun as a gift for son and does an simple intrafamilial transfer to him, without the need of an FFL -- simple, quick and legal.

We got caught up in distinguishing between (1) when mom is buying a gift and is the actual purchaser, which is legal; and (2) when a federal prosecutor could claim that mom is not the actual purchaser, but rather is participating in a straw purchase, which is not legal.

....There is a surge in firearm owners to "tighten up" the ranks. They feel the Brady Camp is gaining ground and the best way is to support ideology that calms Brady supporters down. Supporting money trail investigations is one of those illogical things. They are trying to close the "gun show loop hole." Which we all know there is NO SUCH F-ING thing. Its simply not and never was part of the GCA or NFA to control the giving or selling of standard firearms between family and in some cases friends. PPTs and gifts have been legal since the dawn of firearms, and some day that will not be the case if this doesn't stop....

An interesting fantasy.

...The day it becomes "common knowledge" that buying a gun as a gift is a straw-buy...

Under current law:

• Buying a gun as a gift is unquestionably legal.
• Buying a gun on behalf of someone else, as his agent or proxy, is unquestionably not legal.

What's useful for us to understand is how a federal prosecutor can try to distinguish between the legal transaction and the illegal transaction. He won't necessarily take your word of it. He will look at the totality of the circumstances. One thing he will look at, and if he pursues matters will use to try to convince a judge or jury that the transaction was illegal, will be the source of funds used to buy the gun.

...The source of the money doesn't matter and should NEVER be a factor in the investigation...

Too late -- tracking money has been a common investigative tool for many years. The source of funds is generally accepted as evidence of the character of a transaction and the intent of the parties in a great many situations and contexts.

...I don't care what a Judge, a DA or the Brady camp says...

Well, I sure don't care what the Brady Bunch might say.

But I do care what a judge or a DA might say. Their view of things could provide me with important clues about whether or not I risk going to jail by doing something.

...The day an FFL asks for your last years tax return or a certified copy of your last two paycheck...

More fantasy.

But we can hardy blame an FFL for not being willing to risk his license, livelihood and thousands of dollars in possible legal fees for the sake of a sale he thinks is of questionable legality.

[Briancnelson]

Diesel,

Hate to break it to you, but fiddletown is dead right on this and you're barking up the wrong tree.

Not only does is his argument concise, lawyerly and well argued, but has the benefit of comporting with reality when you compare it to the way that the ATF does, and actually has, prosecuted straw purchases.

That is, when they weren't overlooking them on purpose, which ironically they don't do nearly as often for you and I as they do for drug cartels.

If I was going to point to anyone in this thread whose advice I'd be following if I were the OP, it'd be fiddle town.


"A lot of lawyers make a lot of money trying to get people out of messes they got themselves into because, like you, they thought they understood the law, but really did not. If you want to risk someday helping make one of those lawyers rich, be my guest." Truer words were never spoken. I make a lot less money when someone follows my initial advice as an attorney instead of disregarding it and asking me to fix it later. Nonetheless, I prefer the first kind of client, as they tend to argue over their bill less.

[Apec]

Intrafamilial transfer can work great. Mom buys a gun as a gift for son and does an simple intrafamilial transfer to him, without the need of an FFL -- simple, quick and legal.

We got caught up in distinguishing between (1) when mom is buying a gift and is the actual purchaser, which is legal; and (2) when a federal prosecutor could claim that mom is not the actual purchaser, but rather is participating in a straw purchase, which is not legal.

An interesting fantasy.

Under current law:

• Buying a gun as a gift is unquestionably legal.
• Buying a gun on behalf of someone else, as his agent or proxy, is unquestionably not legal.

What's useful for us to understand is how a federal prosecutor can try to distinguish between the legal transaction and the illegal transaction. He won't necessarily take your word of it. He will look at the totality of the circumstances. One thing he will look at, and if he pursues matters will use to try to convince a judge or jury that the transaction was illegal, will be the source of funds used to buy the gun.

Practically speaking, I think situation (2) is generally only used when said firearm has been found in a crime and there's a motive to nail as many indirect culprits as possible.

Outside of that case, that interpretation lends itself too much to a slippery slope. I'm sure gifted firearms to children, spouses, and relatives are relatively frequent across the country. In fact on this very forum I believe there are folks who've started threads on their significant other giving them a shiny new 1911 or something. These folks can easily be slapped as being "not the actual purchaser," as they had no intent to procure the firearm for any reason other than transferring it to someone else, with some of them knowing exactly what the giftee was looking for. At this point the line between gifter and "agent/proxy" is getting quite thin.

I would argue that the money trail may not be completely pivotal. It's perfectly possible for a straw buyer to buy guns for a felon without demanding anything in return. It's perfectly possible for gifters to implicitly compensate each other for their exchanges, whether through goods or money.

I do know that there is a difference. But in practice, I think that difference is only made to increase the charges/defendants in gun crime, as opposed to criminalizing a gift alone. So long as the gifter is transferring a gun to a non-prohibited person and there is no criminal intent associated with the firearm, I can hardly see any formidable case being made against those parties.

[fiddletown]

Practically speaking, I think situation (2) is generally only used when said firearm has been found in a crime and there's a motive to nail as many indirect culprits as possible...

And you know this how? Do you have any evidence to support your contention?

Outside of that case, that interpretation lends itself too much to a slippery slope...

So what? The question for the federal prosecutor is going to be whether he can make his case.

...I'm sure gifted firearms to children, spouses, and relatives are relatively frequent across the country....

No doubt. And of course a gift is perfectly legal. What's illegal is to buy a gun on behalf of someone else, as his agent or proxy. Whether or not one has engaged in the illegal transaction will be a question of fact and depend on all the exact circumstances.

...In fact on this very forum I believe there are folks who've started threads on their significant other giving them a shiny new 1911 or something....

A gift of a gun to a spouse is pretty much a non-issue. Martial property is owned jointly by both spouses. So if one buys the other a gun with marital property, he/she has bought the gun with his/her own money.

...These folks can easily be slapped as being "not the actual purchaser," as they had no intent to procure the firearm for any reason other than transferring it to someone else, with some of them knowing exactly what the giftee was looking for...

That is not what makes the purchase illegal. What makes the purchase illegal has been described by the ATF in the publications linked to in this thread and as I've outlined.

...At this point the line between gifter and "agent/proxy" is getting quite thin...

Maybe and maybe not. It depends on the exact circumstances. Giving someone money to buy you a gun makes the line a good deal wider.

...I would argue that the money trail may not be completely pivotal. It's perfectly possible for a straw buyer to buy guns for a felon without demanding anything in return...

The money trail may or may not be completely dispositive, but it is a significant factor.

It is in fact possible to buy a gun as a bona fide gift for a prohibited person. If so, it's probably really not prosecutable as a straw purchase. The actual crime in that case would be when the giver transfers the gun to the recipient who the giver knows, or has reason to believe, is a prohibited person.

...It's perfectly possible for gifters to implicitly compensate each other for their exchanges, whether through goods or money...

Except a gift, by definition, is (merriam-webster.com):

something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

So if a transaction winds up being investigated/prosecuted, and the federal prosecutor is able to identify payment, compensation or consideration, whether in cash of in kind, connected with the transaction, the parties' claim that is was a gift might not be believed.

...I do know that there is a difference. But in practice, I think that difference is only made to increase the charges/defendants in gun crime,...

And you know this how? Do you have any evidence. And what if the time someone pulls this sort of stunt things have been slow down at the federal court house, and the prosecutor has nothing better to do than go after that person hard.

...So long as the gifter is transferring a gun to a non-prohibited person and there is no criminal intent associated with the firearm, I can hardly see any formidable case being made against those parties.

[1] And you know this how?

[2] This is not about what the law is. It's about what your chances might be to get away with violating the law. And that will be up to you to decide. However, I suspect that pretty much every person on parole, probation or in prison expected to get away with it.

[dieselpower]

Diesel,

Hate to break it to you, but fiddletown is dead right on this and you're barking up the wrong tree.

Not only does is his argument concise, lawyerly and well argued, but has the benefit of comporting with reality when you compare it to the way that the ATF does, and actually has, prosecuted straw purchases.

That is, when they weren't overlooking them on purpose, which ironically they don't do nearly as often for you and I as they do for drug cartels.

If I was going to point to anyone in this thread whose advice I'd be following if I were the OP, it'd be fiddle town.


"A lot of lawyers make a lot of money trying to get people out of messes they got themselves into because, like you, they thought they understood the law, but really did not. If you want to risk someday helping make one of those lawyers rich, be my guest." Truer words were never spoken. I make a lot less money when someone follows my initial advice as an attorney instead of disregarding it and asking me to fix it later. Nonetheless, I prefer the first kind of client, as they tend to argue over their bill less.

No he's not. Hes just continuing the brainwashing.

Its legal to buy a gun.
Its legal to gift a gun.
Its legal to ask for a loan, or be poor.

I don't like that, so your 3 legal actions = a life long firearm felony conviction based on my political views, which are different than yours. The GCA and NFA were sold to the public as a way to fight crime. Now they are the primary ways to MAKE AN HONEST PERSON INTO A CRIMINAL.

You are broken my friend. I am very sorry about that.

The money trail was to be...
Find a prohibited person with a firearm.
Track the cash to find possible accomplices.

Thats not how its done today. A Judge can just say, "I don't believe you." And your life is over.

[fiddletown]

No he's not. Hes just continuing the brainwashing.

Its legal to buy a gun.
Its legal to gift a gun.
Its legal to ask for a loan, or be poor.

I don't like that, so your 3 legal actions = a life long firearm felony conviction based on my political views, which are different than yours. The GCA and NFA were sold to the public as a way to fight crime. Now they are the primary ways to MAKE AN HONEST PERSON INTO A CRIMINAL....

Well let's see.

One lawyer has explained what the law is and how it works. Another lawyer has confirmed what the first lawyer has said.

But you, who as far as we know have no professional qualifications, still insist that the two actual, real life, who have argued cases and won cases for their clients, lawyers are wrong and don't understand the law.

So I think that we can let the readers of this thread decide whether or not your opinions are worth paying attention to.

[dieselpower]

Well let's see.

One lawyer has explained what the law is and how it works. Another lawyer has confirmed what the first lawyer has said.

But you, who as far as we know have no professional qualifications, still insist that the two actual, real life, who have argued cases and won cases for their clients, lawyers are wrong and don't understand the law.

So I think that we can let the readers of this thread decide whether or not your opinions are worth paying attention to.

A lawyer is wrong 50% of the time.... think about it.

[orangeusa]

So two lawyers - 25%?

[fiddletown]

A lawyer is wrong 50% of the time.... think about it.

No. Lawyers lose cases sometimes because they are stuck with the situations their clients created. Sometimes the law and the facts are against the client. The lawyer can't re-manufacture the laws or the facts, and he still has an ethical obligation to zealously represent the client. Sometime under the circumstances, the best a lawyer will be able to do for his client will not make the client at all happy. That's just real life.

[therealnickb]

A lawyer that goes to trial is wrong 50% of the time.... think about it.

You do realize that most lawyers would have very little work if people didn't have huge egos right?

My friend you have continued to argue what you believe the law to be. You will make many a lawyer happy and rich should you ever be accused of wrong doing and have enough money to fight the charges.

Back up, think. There is a lot of good advice here.

[dieselpower]

No. Lawyers lose cases sometimes because they are stuck with the situations their clients created. Sometimes the law and the facts are against the client. The lawyer can't re-manufacture the laws or the facts, and he still has an ethical obligation to zealously represent the client. Sometime under the circumstances, the best a lawyer will be able to do for his client will not make the client at all happy. That's just real life.

Yes you are correct. Many lawyers looked at their rape victim CLIENTS and said...sorry, you got what you deserved.

That doesn't make them right. That doesn't mean that was the law. It just means two lawyers were crappy at their jobs.

It means there are many many bad lawyers out there who are the worst kind of member in a community. The ones who will sell you down the river just to make a buck or not rock the boat.

You and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. ZUMBO and I didnt see eye to eye either when he said all terrorist use AR15s and AK47s. and he had better credentials then you.

You do realize that most lawyers would have very little work if people didn't have huge egos right?

My friend you have continued to argue what you believe the law to be. You will make many a lawyer happy and rich should you ever be accused of wrong doing and have enough money to fight the charges.

Back up, think. There is a lot of good advice here.

LOL... Again. I am the one with the law on my side. They are siding with the anti-gun lobby and the ATF who believe they have the right to investigate and decide if a legal transaction is illegal due to a non-required item in the law.

THE GCA AND NFA DO NOT REQUIRE EMPLOYMENT OR A SOURCE OF INCOME TO BUY FIREARMS.

ITS A NON-ISSUE. IT WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE AN ISSUE. ITS ONLY BEEN IN RECENT DAYS...SINCE THE BRADY CAMP ISSUED THE "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" THAT THE MONEY TRAIL WAS RELEVANT IN LEGAL SALES.... BEFORE THAT TIME THE MONEY TRAIL WAS ONLY AFTER AN ILLEGAL SALE WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE OCCURRED.

THE PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA IS YOU ARE ALL BRAINWASHED BY THE LAWS HERE. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FIREARM RIGHTS ARE. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU HAVE LOST. THAT IS WHY YOU AGREE WITH THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY AND THE RINOS AMONG US.

THIS IS WHY MUCH OF THE COUNTRY HATES CALIFORNIA AND BLAMES US FOR OUR GUN LAWS... MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND HOW DEEP THE BRAINWASHING GOES.

AND ONCE AGAIN...
I AM THE ONE WHO IS STATING THE LAW AND REGULATION AS WRITTEN.

THE SO CALLED LAWYERS ARE THE ONES TWISTING THE REGULATION AND THE "SYSTEM". YES THE SYSTEM IS ANTI-GUN. YES THE SYSTEM LOOKS AT THE MONEY SOURCE... NO, THATS NOT HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO BE, AND NO THATS NOT HOW IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE GCA OR NFA.

ITS LEGAL TO BUY A FIREARM TO GIVE TO ANOTHER PERSON.

WHERE YOU GET THE FUNDS FOR A LEGAL SALE IS NOT A CONCERN OF THE LAW.
WHERE YOU GOT THE FUNDS OF AN ILLEGAL SALE IS OF CONCERN.

THIS WHOLE PROXY AGENT BUYER BS IS JUST THAT....BS. ITS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE ENOUGH TO TRICK AND BRAINWASH THE PUBLIC INTO YET ANOTHER LAW.

*****Just because its illegal for Pete to buy a gun for Tom, after Tom said..."hey man, buy me a gun." Doesn't mean the law is allowed to track the funds used to buy a firearm for the purpose of determining if that sale was legal.....WHY????.... BECAUSE THE GCA AND NFA DO NOT REQUIRE EMPLOYMENT OR WEALTH TO BUY FIREARMS.******

My daughter is allowed to...its 100% legal to... no law is broken if...she uses my money to buy me a firearm. The same is true for me buying her a firearm. The same is true for me buying a friend a firearm.

My Parent can say, "No" to buying me a firearm, then buy me a firearm the next week. HELL... I think thats how I got my shotgun at age 16! My mom said NO like 3 freaking times...then bought one for me. Its not a dam STRAW BUY!