Tweet
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 -
Court decision -
"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."
The court acknowledged the buyer may have committed other offenses not charged and dismissed the applicability of "Abramski" concluding -
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.
The article -
Court decision -
"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."
The court acknowledged the buyer may have committed other offenses not charged and dismissed the applicability of "Abramski" concluding -
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.
Comment