Gun Sale Denied by Owner of Gun Shop

[Pred@tor]

I bought a gun for my Dad but he was not a prohibited person. I gifted him the firearm after I had purchased it myself. This is Missouri though so you guys have a lot more annoying red tape.

[Databyter]

This irks me. I do belive the gun shop people were doing what they thought was right.

That's not what irks me.

What irks me is that a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction from a decade ago would ban a citizen from gun ownership.

It reminds me of the time that my strung out ex came to MY house that she has been taken off the lease of and went berserk on me. I called the Police, they arrived, promptly arrested ME and I spent the next 4 days in jail with a 30Grand bail, meanwhile my ex stayed at my home that she didn't live in, and was offered domestic abuse victim counseling!.

I had had a restraining order (temporary) against her a few months earlier.

She gets counseling I get to spend 4 days in jail. I never hit her just held her while the police arrived as she was punching and kicking ME.

I was never even arraigned, muchless convicted, but I was punished by a predjudiced Cop and a disfunctional system and I know a lot of guys are the victims of crazy women who lose it and for some reason it is always seen as the guys fault.

If I had not restraigned her she might have killed me. She was not in her right mind, yet by defending myself I have commited a crime, and felt I was lucky she had no injuries or I'm sure I would be denied guns for life!.

It just ain't right.

[Databyter]

You seem to be using "misdemeanor" and "restraining order" as if they meant the same thing. They do not.

A misdemeanor conviction would have occurred because your SO plead guilty in a criminal proceeding or was found guilty following a trial.

A restraining order is typically issued in a civil court - in California, the restraining order cannot issue based on "no proof". It may be that you or your SO don't find the evidence credible, but to issue an RO without supporting testimony or an affidavit would be a very basic procedural error which is very, very unlikely.

It seems to me the first thing you need to do is to figure out exactly what happened 10 years ago.

In Domestic cases you can get a restraining order on anyone with no proof provided the threat that the plaintiff contends is one that might involve bodily harm of themselves or a child or an abduction of the child (for examples).

The court will issue a temporary restraining order on the person in question with ne evidence or proof except the declaration of the purson requesting the order. This is done as a legal precaution to prevent the possibility of injury to any party.

The court then will serve both parties a summons to a court date where the veracity of any such claims is explored.

However usually the TRO is dropped at that point either because it is found to be unecesary because things have cooled down, or was never necesary in the first place. Of course in some cases the order is made permanant or extended for a fixed period of time pending more review or another hearing.

I think I agree with you tho, that a restraigning order in and of itself is not a misdemeaner, so there has to be more to the story.

In many cases lawyers mistakenly advise clients to cop a plea in domestic cases to smooth along to mediation which basically is advice to admit your wrong whether you really are or not so you can see your kids again or move back into your own house etc. It's bad advice when you look at the new draconian additives to the law regarding these kinds of convictions.

I could make a case for it being appropriate for an actual recent felony, But these days you could get a misdemeaner conviction for simply being home at the wrong time.

[FNH5-7]

Wrong.

If you buy a gun for anybody, you are guilty of a felony. It doesn't matter if they're allowed to own the gun or not.

(not sure if anybody corrected you yet)

I believe you're allowed to purchase a handgun with the intention of intra family transfering it to your 18-20 yr old.

[freonr22]

hey op, take a peek here and see if you are interested

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=337306

[OleCuss]

LuckyEnough:

I'm happy to assume that your motives and actions were pure. I've no problem with your friend seeing a good investment opportunity and when he can't take advantage of that opportunity - you make the attempt. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But in the current climate the shop owner did the right thing as well. You have to understand that Obama and company (read BATF) aren't exactly willing to make the assumption of innocence that some of us are happy to make.

Puts me in mind of the case where (IIRC) a gun dealer sold a firearm to someone who had all the proper documentation but turned out to be an illegal anyway. Net effect is that the dealer goes to jail and the illegal alien is free as a bird inside the U.S.

The shop owner should be at least half-paranoid if he/she understands reality.

So you're stuck with the situation where you did the right thing and the shop owner did the right thing - and it sucks for both of you since you didn't get to make the investment and he didn't get the sale.

My recommendation is that you not bother with the lawyer - waste of your time and money. Instead, give the money you'd waste on your lawyer to your friend to help him get his prohibition lifted. And I'm glad you know that he can never have access to your firearms.

[Honeydos]

LuckyEnough:
Puts me in mind of the case where (IIRC) a gun dealer sold a firearm to someone who had all the proper documentation but turned out to be an illegal anyway. Net effect is that the dealer goes to jail and the illegal alien is free as a bird inside the U.S.

Here's that story OleCuss.


Gun Dealer Gets Prison for Selling to Illegal Immigrant; Illegal 'Middle Man' Not Charged

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/09...#ixzz17uOBaXQl

[VictorFranko]

Obviously you were there to purchase that gun for your "significant other" who was denied by the DOJ.
Kudos to the gun shop owner for stepping in.
Doubtful you know all the facts of the broken relationship and restraining order.

[OleCuss]

OK, let's say that I found a nice Kimber that someone wanted to sell for $1. I may not even want a Kimber, but given that I can turn around and sell the thing for hundreds of dollars more, I want to buy it anyway - because I view it as a good investment.

Unfortunately, all I've got is two dimes to rub together so I can't buy it - but you've got $10 in your pocket and you're a friend of mine so I tell you about the great deal available and you go to buy it even though you hate Kimbers.

As I hear it that is roughly the situation the OP'er is trying to present to us. I have no knowledge that says she is telling the truth but given that I don't know that she isn't telling the truth I'm going to assume that she is.

It also explains why she doesn't go to another gun shop - the other gun shops may realize the worth of the equivalent firearm and will only sell it at a higher price.

I fail to find evil in her intent - or in that of the gun shop.

Let's attack the Brady Bunch and their fellows amongst our legislators, regulators, and adjudicators.

[bruss01]

To answer your question, I keep everyone from having access to my safes and all that is contained in them, including the guns. That isn't specifically for them although it turns out to have been a good move on my part given the current situation. Remember, I'm not married and that means I don't have to share everything or anything if I don't chose to. I walked into the shop with him because I didn't have a clue that I was going to be accused of doing something wrong. I really resent some of the "holier than thou" opinions of some of the replies accusing me of attempting to do something illegal. That wasn't the case. That I showed up at the gun store with him is a pretty good indication that I didn't begin to think there was a problem let alone trying to commit a illegal transaction. And no, I didn't dream of walking in the store alone and that I could have purchased it because afterall we were told beforehand to come on down and that it was being sold to me. Why was I to think there was a problem? Far from it. You can accuse me of being naive, but nothing more than that. Furthermore, I would never ask anyone in my family or otherwise to get involved in buying a gun for me or anyone else. I don't need to for one, and duh, I know the law. He didn't ask me to buy it and he wouldn't have. As stupid as it sounds I decided to originally to try to meet the next level of rewards on my friggin' credit card and that would have about got me there. (An investment is an investment. Gotta find something else I guess . ) I'll be honest enough to say that maybe someday it would have been a gift, certainly maybe an inheritance to someone but if that had ever occurred then it would have been transferred legally OR NOT AT ALL REMAINING MINE. I stated in another post, I PLAY by the rules TOTALLY. I'm about as conservative and law abiding as they come for those who are chiding me as being a lawbreaker and looking for sympathy. Nah. I've got all your opinions registering loud and clear and my momma didn't have no idiot for a child. If it makes you all feel better, tomorrow I'll be calmer about the situation for all your input. So have an open mind and realize that the gun shop got no new information today that it couldn't have acted on days ago and for those of you who run own or work for gun shops maybe you can see that they could have handled the whole thing differently and saved us a trip and an angry lady from posting on the calguns site.

What's not clear is whether your significant other had a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence, or had a restraining order, or both. If the RO, then he would be prohibited from owning or having access to firearms while the RO is in effect. If he plead guilty or no contest to misdemeanor domestic violence, due to the Lautenberg amendment he is prohibited FOR LIFE from owning or having access to firearms.

"having access" can mean anything from toting one in his pocket, to knowing where the key to your safe is stored.

It's clear you did not intend to do anything illegal. However, it IS ILLEGAL for your SO to own a gun or purchase a gun (or have someone purchase it for him). You buying that gun (due tot he fact he cannot buy it) would be what is called a "straw purchase" which could cause the gun dealer to lose his license or even go to jail. It happens all the time. Just because you and he were not aware of the law, doesn't mean the store did anything wrong in denying the purchase... that is what they are obligated by law to do.

There isn't really any "loophole" for saying a certain gun purchase is for investment and not to hold up a liquor store or shoot an ex girlfriend. The purpose of the purchase is not germane to whether the sale is allowable or not.

If it is just an old RO that is still left in place, it may be that you can work with an attorney to get that lifted. If it is a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction on his record, that's a different story... clearing that from his record requires a process called expungement and can be very difficult to get removed from his record. Talk to an attorney, see what the options are.

It's very unfortunate this happened. This is because laws are being made by people who don't understand the unintended consequences those laws inflict on we the people. It sounds really good for a legislator to stand up and say "Let's keep wife abusers from buying guns" because he is "doing something" about a perceived problem. But then it is so sloppily implemented that good people (who catch a bad break) get swept up with the bad. You are right to be cheesed about the situation... however, that's what the laws and regulations currently are. Your anger should be directed at the politicians who made the laws, not the gun seller who obeys them or the police who enforce them. Yes it sucks. I hope you remember this situation the next time you vote.

[9mmlaw]

OK, let's say that I found a nice Kimber that someone wanted to sell for $1. I may not even want a Kimber, but given that I can turn around and sell the thing for hundreds of dollars more, I want to buy it anyway - because I view it as a good investment.

Unfortunately, all I've got is two dimes to rub together so I can't buy it - but you've got $10 in your pocket and you're a friend of mine so I tell you about the great deal available and you go to buy it even though you hate Kimbers.

As I hear it that is roughly the situation the OP'er is trying to present to us. I have no knowledge that says she is telling the truth but given that I don't know that she isn't telling the truth I'm going to assume that she is.

It also explains why she doesn't go to another gun shop - the other gun shops may realize the worth of the equivalent firearm and will only sell it at a higher price.

I fail to find evil in her intent - or in that of the gun shop.

Let's attack the Brady Bunch and their fellows amongst our legislators, regulators, and adjudicators.

Did you read what happened? It is nothing like the scenario you pose. The OP's friend did not buy the gun because of the lack of funds, his purchase was DENIED. Had it been that he said he did not have the money but she should buy it, the shop would not be in the position of suspecting a straw purchase because there was no previous denial.

OP: The best advice is to follow Bweise's post because you have absolutely no case against the shop. They are under no obligation to sell to you.

[bandook]

OP is understandably upset. Unfortunately, there's not much she can do about it other than vent her frustration. The gun shop owner did the right thing - for everyone around. I think most of us are telling her that the FFL didn't break the law - as she insists he did.
An alternative (and very unfortunate situation) would have been that the gun shop owner notified the DOJ of a suspected straw-man purchase during the 10-day-wait. It would have cost OP big bucks to extricate herself from that charge - far more than any gains she's expecting from this specific 'investment'.

[OleCuss]

Did you read what happened? It is nothing like the scenario you pose. The OP's friend did not buy the gun because of the lack of funds, his purchase was DENIED. Had it been that he said he did not have the money but she should buy it, the shop would not be in the position of suspecting a straw purchase because there was no previous denial.
.
.

Yup, I read it and he couldn't buy it. And I fully realize the fact that he is a prohibited person. Note that I used the term "roughly"?

The point is that it was a really good deal and he couldn't buy it. She was made aware of the fact that it was a really good deal and decided to buy it for herself and apparently brought him along as an adviser/friend.

There is no good reason for us as CGN'ers to assume that she had evil intent. There was very good reason for the gun shop owner to assume she was trying to accomplish a straw purchase.

There's no need for us to accuse her of evil intent or deed.

[The Shadow]

Straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 for both the straw purchaser (who can be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the actual possessor.

Not sure when they made "straw purchases" illegal, but I do know it was at least after '77. A friend of mine helped me purchase my first handgun in '75, when I was only 20 years old. In '77, while I was in the Army, I helped a friend purchase his first handgun when he was only 20. In neither case were we concerned about a straw purchase. In my opinion, I think straw purchases are the least of anyone's worry when criminals can buy a stolen gun from the black market. While it's the law, it's another one that fits nicely into the category of dumb laws.

[Aleksei Vasiliev]

I believe you're allowed to purchase a handgun with the intention of intra family transfering it to your 18-20 yr old.

As a gift. You are using your own money to buy the gun, without compensation, so it's not a straw purchase.

While it's the law, it's another one that fits nicely into the category of dumb laws.

No, it's not. Straw purchases are commonly used by criminals.