GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Economy So Strong That eBay Hard Up For Business

Corprin

Corprin

Autocross Champion
anotero said:
Nope, the scenario is the same as before.

And no, there is no violation in the scenario. Like i said, if intent was everything, manslaughter would not exist as a charge, period.
Click to expand...

Conversely, if intent doesn’t matter, then murder would not exist as a charge.
 
B

brat_burner

Autocross Champion
Acadia18 said:
Going to pop in and drop this here since I know not everyone in the thread peruses the general MK7 forums (despite this thread being located on the MK7 forums :ROFLMAO:).

https://www.golfmk7.com/forums/index.php?threads/the-2021-secret-santa-thread.390373/

While many of us have conflicting political and world views, it's a good time of the year to remember we can all still be amicable with each other and have some fun.
Click to expand...
Don’t fall for this trap! The first year I joined and I got sent MK7 parts for my 6!!!!!! What a scam!
 
anotero

anotero

Autocross Champion
Corprin said:
And that is the point I am attempting to make. The scenario stated he gave his father money to buy him a non-roster hand gun, then gift it to him through a familial transfer into CA as a means to circumvent the CA law saying he can’t buy that handgun in CA directly.

The fact that he can legally own the handgun, even a non-roster handgun through the gifting, is absolutely immaterial in the violation of federal law. I think this is the confusing part.

It’s a common misconception that a straw purchase only exists if the firearm is sold to a person that can’t legally own it/one. The courts have upheld illegal “straw purchase” convictions, that is the straw purchase is illegal not the conviction, even when both parties are legally allowed to own said firearm. The violation stems from the intent of the purchase/transfer to obtain the firearm for someone else.

Even if you don’t tell anyone about it, the violation still exists because the original purchase/transfer from the FFL to the father was not legal since the father was not the buyer as stated on the 4473.

This is where the bone fide gift comes into play. Has the father used his funds to buy the handgun, with intent to gift the gun to his son, aka an actual gift. No laws are violated.

It was the part of the scenario “I give my dad money to buy me the handgun and gift it to me” that constitutes the illegal act.

In the case of Rittenhouse/Black, they testified that Black bought the rifle for Rittenhouse, with Rittenhouse’s money because the latter was under-age, with intent on giving Rittenhouse the rifle when he came of age. This is an admission of the violation, the “gifting money” then “gifting rifle” is a meager attempt to pull a “ha gotcha!” on the feds. This doesn’t really matter since Rittenhouse bought the rifle through another person, and that person stated in the 4473 that they were the buyer.

This subject is covered by both sides of the gun debate, even the NRA ILA says “watch yourself in this arena, it could be considered a straw purchase.”

if @anotero wants to play with fire for a silly handgun, that’s on him, but the act of buying a gun through another person is illegal.
Click to expand...

"This is where the bone fide gift comes into play. Has the father used his funds to buy the handgun, with intent to gift the gun to his son, aka an actual gift. No laws are violated."

And if i reimburse my father after the fact? Where do you draw the intent line? Is my convincing my father to buy a non-roster handgun with his own funds so he can gift it to me a violation?
No fire to play with because it's a hypothetical scenario, regardless of the laws and ypur interpretation of them.

Like i said before: intent or lack thereof is abstract and nearly impossible to prove. Manslaughter is case in point: if someone dies, someone has to go to jail, regardless of absence of premeditation. I don't agree with that, but that's the system at hand. In fact, what matters is not the intent when it comes to buying and transferring guns. What matters is what you put in section 21a of 4473 and how someone interprets that in case you gift the gun afterwards: lying on a government form. Nothing to do with intent.
 
Acadia18

Acadia18

Autocross Champion
brat_burner said:
Don’t fall for this trap! The first year I joined and I got sent MK7 parts for my 6!!!!!! What a scam!
Click to expand...

It's ok. The consensus is we can't all be amicable towards each other anyway.
 
Corprin

Corprin

Autocross Champion
anotero said:
"This is where the bone fide gift comes into play. Has the father used his funds to buy the handgun, with intent to gift the gun to his son, aka an actual gift. No laws are violated."

And if i reimburse my father after the fact? Where do you draw the intent line? Is my convincing my father to buy a non-roster handgun with his own funds so he can gift it to me a violation?
No fire to play with because it's a hypothetical scenario, regardless of the laws and ypur interpretation of them.

Like i said before: intent or lack thereof is abstract and nearly impossible to prove. Manslaughter is case in point: if someone dies, someone has to go to jail, regardless of absence of premeditation. I don't agree with that, but that's the system at hand. In fact, what matters is not the intent when it comes to buying and transferring guns. What matters is what you put in section 21a of 4473 and how someone interprets that in case you gift the gun afterwards: lying on a government form. Nothing to do with intent.
Click to expand...

Well. I suggest you read the case law on the subject. Good luck. 👍
 
anotero

anotero

Autocross Champion
Corprin said:
Well. I suggest you read the case law on the subject. Good luck. 👍
Click to expand...
The beauty of the American legal system is that it's precedent based and swings back and forth like a fucking pendulum. I'll go read more useful things instead.
 
jimlloyd40

jimlloyd40

Autocross Champion
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top