• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Even if the original sale was legal, anyone can “decide” to sell a gun they just bought the second they walk out the door, and can sell it to anyone they want without even asking for the buyers name.

    They could walk up to a stranger on the sidewalk and offer to sell it for a profit immediately and break zero laws.

    You’ve got “decide” in quotes suggesting that the person is actually buying the gun for resale. Isn’t that the definition a straw purchase which is illegal?

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      Of course. Not that that actually stops anyone who is fine with committing crime.

        • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          Straw purchases aren’t outright illegal though. Most of the time straw purchase laws require that the reseller understand that the ultimate owner is not legally able to recieve the product or intends to comit a crime.

          So, yes, one could do so without committing a crime under current US law.

          A straw purchase is just buying a thing for resale. Buying groceries for a grandmother is included in that definition.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            26 days ago

            Most of the time straw purchase laws require that the reseller understand that the ultimate owner is not legally able to recieve the product or intends to comit a crime.

            So, yes, one could do so without committing a crime under current US law.

            I think Abramski v. United States disagrees with your conclusion.

            “Abramski’s defense was that the misrepresentation was not material since his uncle was legally capable of making the purchase himself”

            The Supreme Court upheld the conviction delivered by the lower court.

            • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              26 days ago

              It does not, it states that a person can’t lie on an a form to purchase a weapon by stating they are purchasing the weapon for themselves when they are not. This doesn’t criminalize all straw purchases, it simply agrees with the fact that lying on these forms is a crime. If a person answers truthfully, recieveds a weapon, and resells it, no crime is commuted by that individual.

              His crime was the false statement not the straw purchase. Here’s the holding:

              A person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation that violates federal law because it concerns “information required by [Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code] to be kept” in the dealer’s records.

              I’ll admit, I don’t know if you legally need to answer that specific question in all states or any for that matter so you may be right. I’m only really taking issue with the idea that straw purchases are a crime in and of themselves. They are not