Cop transfering p320 to a civil frowned upon?? Why??

[Mk2mikedc2]

Why is it so bad to ask a leo if he or she could purchase an off roster weapon... if a ppt is legal why would it be bad??
Over heard a convo at turners about the topic
Like do cops not want this type of gun out in the public??
Do cops just not have time to be messing around with dumb crap like this??
Is it illegal to even ask a cop to do this??

I was intrigued by the topic

[DarkSoul]

Because it's basically a straw Man purchase. Cops are buying guns that are illegal for "civilians" to purchase (right or wrong is another debate), with the sole intention of reselling it to a civilian. Yes, it's technically legal, but also goes to sort of prove that LEO that do do it are above the law since by definition, it's also a straw man purchase.

[edgerly779]

If cop already owns it then some can transfer. If not then felony for both of you.

[Milsurp1]

No, it is not legal, technically or otherwise, for a cop to purchase a gun when he knows he is not the true intended transferee and is planning to transfer it to someone else. Even though federal law allows gifts California has additional criminal restrictions against the practice in state law. Many police departments have policies against it also.

[Mk2mikedc2]

This explains why the worker was whispering

[Mk2mikedc2]

Because it's basically a straw Man purchase. Cops are buying guns that are illegal for "civilians" to purchase (right or wrong is another debate), with the sole intention of reselling it to a civilian. Yes, it's technically legal, but also goes to sort of prove that LEO that do do it are above the law since by definition, it's also a straw man purchase.

But isnt hard to prove it's a straw man purchase?? Even though it is??

[Mk2mikedc2]

If cop already owns it then some can transfer. If not then felony for both of you.

How so??? And what about interfamily transfers??

[esy]

Kevin de Leon, is that you?

[edgerly779]

Intrafamilial is fine but must be gift and family member cannot purchase for purpose of getting off roster handgun to you. That is also a straw purchase and felonies for both.

[rromeo]

Cops have been prosecuted for this. It doesn't even matter about the roster, look up Abramski v. United States.

[pacrat]

Cops have been prosecuted for this. It doesn't even matter about the roster, look up Abramski v. United States.

^^^Beat me to it^^^

Prior to 2014 and the Abramski case. It was considered perfectly legal, for a LEO or anyone else to buy a gun for another. As long as the OTHER, wasn't a prohibited person.

Because that was the INTENT of the law. To keep guns out of prohibited possession.

That changed when ATF got the Abramski ruling, which determined that the LETTER of the LAW. Prohibited any such transfers as "Strawman Transfers".

A LOT of back story to the case. Which boils down to ATF/FBI had a big raging boner to get Abramski for anything they could because they were looking like fools. For playing the part of tools for a Cop who wanted Abramski's wife for himself.

Sad really, because when they screwed Abramski to save face. They screwed all gun buyers, to a certain extent. Not that Feebs give a crap who they screw.

[rromeo]

Even prior to that, there was an LAPD or LASD officer charged for buying one of the department marked Kimbers for a relative or friend. As I recall, it was even a rostered model, the only difference was the engraving.

[Mk2mikedc2]

Big difference between frowned upon and illegal. Guy asking at tuners was a noob. Guy working wasnt giving best advice either..

[lmcc0072]

Cops have been prosecuted for this. It doesn't even matter about the roster, look up Abramski v. United States.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/23/ex-san-diego-sheriffs-captain-arrested-in-gun-sales/

[pacrat]

But isnt hard to prove it's a straw man purchase?? Even though it is??

PROVING a "straw purchase" is impossible without provable "INTENT".

Other than Abramski, all the LEO cases that I'm aware of, were not for single incidents. They involved large multiple purchases by LEO for profit, over periods of time. Making the primary charge for BEING IN THE BUSINESS. Without being licensed.

Abramski was for a single Glock purchased on behalf of an uncle. But a trail of digital and paper bread crumbs easily proved intent. Abramski did it as a favor using his LEO discount. There was no profit involved.