Cops Sue FFL

[taperxz]

How in the world could a person buy a gun online using an alias? I doubt the buyer sent cash, most are credit/debit purchases and occasional postal/bank checks are used. So the person has a bank account with an alias? Using an alias to purchase a gun to be transferred has zero benefit since the place you actually need to show your face is where it counts.

If the FFL believed the alias story, that was a pretty risky mistake and at best dumb to process.

In fairness to the FFL, an employee could have let this slip through but unfortunately, it still falls on the FFL holder

[kemasa]

Your link is irrelevant, and a deflection.

Not at all. The problem is that you only see what you want to see.

Cops in SacOcrapmento busted for Dealing without a license,[irrelevant to this case]. And selling off Ca Roster guns for profit. [irrelevant to this case] Mn has no roster, gun used in the crime were bought from a licensed dealer. [irrelevant in this case]

Quite true, but that was not the point, it was that the FFL was also charged. What did that FFL do wrong? How is it different than getting a bogus response and stupidly accepting it?

And the Ca FFL was proven to be "KNOWINGLY COMPLICIT".

And it is also the case in this case.

No it couldn't. Because all 3 sections of 478.128 [a] - [b] - [c]. All start with sentences referring to ANY person who "KNOWINGLY MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS".

The FFL knew that the person who paid for the firearm was not the person doing the paperwork. The alias claims is absurd.

The strawman, made the false statements on the 4473. NOT the FFL. He was arrested for doing so. The FFL made "NO FALSE STATEMENTS". So 478.128 is [irrelevant in this case]

Have you read the 4473? Do you know what the FFL signs to?

USC 922 is another obsfucatory deflection. The "strawman buyer" was NOT a prohibited person. USC 922 is only a list, of what constitutes a "prohibited person".

The FFL did "NOT KNOWINGLY" transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. [irrelevant to this case]

The FFL transferred the firearm who was not the actual buyer. There was evidence of that.

That is humorous beyond belief. Now you are arguing with yourself. You now claim that "knowingly" doesn't matter in this case.

The "knowingly" applies to giving a firearm to someone who is prohibited. In this case it is about false statements on a Federal document. You just don't want to listen to reality, do you?

Yet in the same post, you list USC 478.128 that includes "Knowingly" in every section as a prerequisite for a crime to have been committed. A crime which BTW was NOT COMMITTED in this case.Then you claim that the very same laws you claim support your position are of "No matter". Again claiming that the FFL broke "other laws" which you again, cannot support with a factual cite of any code.

Really? I am glad to know that you have judged it with all your legal experience and experience in being a FFL to know that.

Hint........Doing something "ILLEGAL" as you contend the FFL in this case did. Requires that they actually broke a law to be true.

Quite true, as has been pointed out, but you refuse to listen. The FFL had reason to believe, with documents, that the person filling out the forms was not the intended buyer.

It is impossible to prove a negative. Yet you claim.

Because I can't prove a negative.

Yes, you are confused. You always seem to be. You want to argue a point and refuse to listen to anything which goes against what you have decided.

You claim that the FFL broke laws and did something illegal. Which is a positive statement. Yet you can't seem to find these elusive laws you claim exist, that he broke, which you feel he should be punished for. That is an unsupported claim.

I have already said, but you can't read or understand.

Is that another attempt at humor? Supporting a claim, with nothing but your own further unsupported opinions, and obsfucatory cites of laws that are irrelevant because none of then apply to the case at hand, is not proof of support, of your own original unsupported claim.

No humor, but you seem to be a troll.You just refuse to read and understand and it is not just from me either.

The credit card of the payee is also irrelevant. That info would remain with the original online seller.

That is funny. It is not irrelevant and your statement also shows your ignorance. So the online seller never sends a copy of the credit card receipt? They never include an invoice? If a credit card was used, it is very relevant since it shows the alias claim to be completely bogus, but you have decided something else without any facts.

Which for all we know was a private party and was paid with a Money Order. Not the FFL doing the transfer. Which the FFL doing the transfer is not "legally obligated" to pursue.

You don't know.

What was said that the paperwork showed another name. When there are signs that the person doing the paperwork than who the actual buyer is then the FFL does have obligations. Ask your IOI.

No actually, I readily admit that I do not. Unlike yourself who is claiming that the FFL is a criminal, without even one bit of evidence to support the claim. In any of the information available. Just because a FFL in another state did something that you wouldn't do. And it did not end well for innocent 3rd parties. Does not make them a criminal.

Not one bit of evidence? So the paperwork with a different name does not exist?

As to the underlined in your quote. Makes it sound like you are of the belief that just because some Brady Bunch Gun Grabbing attorneys from DC. Sue a businessman because of their political agenda. And the injured cops act as their "puppet plaintiffs" for a payout. That makes the FFL somehow guilty just for being sued by the Brady Bunch. "If the Brady Bunch sues you, you are automatically guilty, because the Brady Bunch sued you"

Completely FALSE. You do like to make things up, don't you?

The basis is because the order document had another name, it has NOTHING to do with the lawsuit or anything else.

Even if the jury finds for the plaintiffs in this case. Using the Boo-Hoo factor. Which happens all to often in this liberal bleeding heart litigious society. I would not believe the FFL did anything "wrong", unless they prove he broke the law. Or was "criminally negligent", which is a very high standard. And would again, require fore knowledge aka "knowingly" negligent.

Again false statements. It would have to do that the FFL had reason to believe that it was an illegal transfer because the documents showed a different name.

As previously stated, pulling the BooHoo after the fact "could'a, would'a, should'a, known card" is just a means for assigning blame on the innocent. That does not make a person guilty of wrongdoing. Just as you claiming he broke non-existant laws makes him a criminal.

The FFL knew. It has nothing to do with assigning the blame on the innocent.

Go ask a Federal Firearms Attorney what laws the FFL might have violated, they are a better person to give you the exact code section which so dearly want.

Just as in this thread.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1311001

Not quite. There was information given. The problem is in knowing whether it is true or not. The real problem in that case is that nothing was done with a person who had mental problems.

Money and Politics-Not right or wrong-Not legal or Illegal-Money and Politics.

Wrong.

That is what is driving this rash of Brady Bunch law suits against gun shops across the nation.

Yes, but it does not help when the FFL does something wrong.

My heart goes out to the officers that were injured by a lunatic with mental issues. I'm glad he is dead, and is no longer a threat to others. I know a Deputy from LASD that was shot just last yr and damn near lost his arm and his life.

Yes, that is true.

But IMHO going after the shop that sold the tool the lunatic used. Is akin to sueing a Ford dealer because you got hit by a crazy person driving a Ford.

Wrong. The FFL had information that there was an issue and ignored it.

All you FFLs better close ranks and stick together. The Brady Bunch has you in their sights as soft targets to fulfill their agenda. And are making public statements to the fact to gather support.

Stick together when someone does something wrong? The reason to speak out is to convince other FFLs to not be stupid and ignore things which can cause problems for them in the future.

For those of you who agree with the Brady Bunch agenda. I'm sure Sarah and Jim are looking up from hell with adoring eyes at you.

Oh, that is so nice, but it is also false. You like to make things up since saying that the FFL did something wrong is NOT agreeing with the Brady Bunch agenda, but it is makes for a nice line from you.

Bye

Glad to hear that you are leaving.

[kemasa]

How in the world could a person buy a gun online using an alias? I doubt the buyer sent cash, most are credit/debit purchases and occasional postal/bank checks are used. So the person has a bank account with an alias? Using an alias to purchase a gun to be transferred has zero benefit since the place you actually need to show your face is where it counts.

Quite true, but there are some who want to think that it makes sense.

It would be interesting to see ALL of the documentation which came with the firearm, including how the firearm was paid for.

I suspect that the FFL just wanted the money for the transfer and didn't really care.

If the FFL believed the alias story, that was a pretty risky mistake and at best dumb to process.

Yep.

In fairness to the FFL, an employee could have let this slip through but unfortunately, it still falls on the FFL holder

Yep. This is why employees have to be properly trained and understand the issues, as well if there are any questions to bring it to their employer.

[kemasa]

I learned something today. If I don't know what the Code section is then something is not illegal. I thought it was illegal to make a false statement on a Federal form, but since I don't know the Code section for that it means that it is not illegal unless and until I get the Code section. Amazing.

[taperxz]

I learned something today. If I don't know what the Code section is then something is not illegal. I thought it was illegal to make a false statement on a Federal form, but since I don't know the Code section for that it means that it is not illegal unless and until I get the Code section. Amazing.

Not much different than when "that guy" comes in to tell me the laws of my profession and how I should run my business in the name of freedom and patriots

[SIP2000GLO]

I was cool with the Officers until I read that they are with the Brady Bunch.

[kemasa]

I was just thinking about the alias issue. If the firearms were bought through an auction site, the account name is not the actual name of the person (ie GunBroker), so no need to go by an alias there as it is not actually the person's real name (the account name is basically an alias, but it is not really a "name", just like the account names here). If the firearm was bought directly on a web site, that is not public, so no need for an alias there either and it would create problems when paying.

There is the issue of paying, but ignore that for now. I don't get the reason to ever use an alias (other than account names) when buying a firearm online, so can anyone explain with a reasonable, rational explanation as to why using another name would make any sense at all?

[taperxz]

I was just thinking about the alias issue. If the firearms were bought through an auction site, the account name is not the actual name of the person (ie GunBroker), so no need to go by an alias there as it is not actually the person's real name (the account name is basically an alias, but it is not really a "name", just like the account names here). If the firearm was bought directly on a web site, that is not public, so no need for an alias there either and it would create problems when paying.

There is the issue of paying, but ignore that for now. I don't get the reason to ever use an alias (other than account names) when buying a firearm online, so can anyone explain with a reasonable, rational explanation as to why using another name would make any sense at all?

Sure there is a good reason! To be able to create a straw purchase. If two people walked into the store, it would smell straw purchase all day. The online way seemed to work. Less scrutiny with a purchase that was not originally in the dealers "for sale" inventory.

Again, the problem is that the FFL could have flagged the situation and returned the firearm. Bottom line.

[kemasa]

Ok, I guess I should have added "if you are not trying to violate the law".

Years ago I had a straw purchase. I thought I was talking to one person, but that person let another person use his account. They made it really easy on me though, when I asked about it (things did not quite add up) I was told that it was none of my business. Wrong answer, return to sender.

[acespawnshop]

On the online Alias issue. It would be VERY easy to purchase (or at least place an online order) with a false name. They only go off what you say, and if you pay with a green dot credit card who would know.

[taperxz]

On the online Alias issue. It would be VERY easy to purchase (or at least place an online order) with a false name. They only go off what you say, and if you pay with a green dot credit card who would know.

Easy? perhaps. The question is why in a legal transaction would anyone need to remain annonymous? To fool the receiving FFL? What purpose does it serve other than to think you're sly for fun? OR to facilitate a straw purchase.

[acespawnshop]

Easy? perhaps. The question is why in a legal transaction would anyone need to remain annonymous? To fool the receiving FFL? What purpose does it serve other than to think you're sly for fun? OR to facilitate a straw purchase.

My post was in response to the prior posts regarding using an Alias. As an FFL it wouldn't get your gun to you at this store. Regarding what purpose, people do strange things for many reasons. Misguided ideas, but still people do dumb things and I wouldn't put it past somebody to do this.

[kemasa]

My post was in response to the prior posts regarding using an Alias. As an FFL it wouldn't get your gun to you at this store. Regarding what purpose, people do strange things for many reasons. Misguided ideas, but still people do dumb things and I wouldn't put it past somebody to do this.

But that is the point, it does not gain anything unless you are trying to do something illegal.

[kemasa]

I just realized an non-illegal reason that a person might want to buy a firearm online using an alias. There are FFLs who have fired customers due to their actions, so if the customer was banned and that FFL has what they are looking for and/or has it for a good price, they might need to hide who they are in order to be able to buy it.

It is also a reason to not want to deal with that person as well.

[acespawnshop]

I just realized an non-illegal reason that a person might want to buy a firearm online using an alias. There are FFLs who have fired customers due to their actions, so if the customer was banned and that FFL has what they are looking for and/or has it for a good price, they might need to hide who they are in order to be able to buy it.

It is also a reason to not want to deal with that person as well.

I think the only really legit reason one could argue, is that you are worried about identity theft. I know an online vendor who had that happen. They sent two letters to us to send to the customer saying they suspected their information was stolen. I cant remember who the vendor was so don't ask.

However, if this is your true intent, and you use a green dot card, there are issues that can arise if for some reason the gun has to go back. You can't refund money on a green dot card, so not sure even if online sellers would take them...... I don't try and come up with creative ways to change an invoice. (-: