shall we clear the air about a word: gift.
quote
A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, from one person to another,made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money. unquote
http://thelawdictionary.org/gift/
ya'll got that concept down? made gratuitously with no consideration of blood or money...here we go...
The case involved the conviction of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., of Rocky Mount, Virginia, a former police officer who was convicted of claiming falsely that he was the buyer of a Glock 19 handgun, when in fact he was buying it for his uncle, Angel Alvarez.
After Alvarez sent Abramski a check for $400, Abramski went to a gun dealer in Collinsville, Virginia, who catered to police officers as customers. He filled out the government-required purchase form, marking “yes” to a question about whether he was the actual purchaser. After his conviction, he was given three years of probation.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/opinion-analysis-no-stand-in-gun-buyers-allowed/
how on God's green earth does the uncle giving his nephew $400 to buy a gun meet anyone's criteria of a gift? the arrogance of this former LE who went to a FFL, who severely discounts firearm costs only to LEs, to get his uncle a 'great' deal on a Glock and got caught with the deceit and decided to push the lie to the SC.
(liken the situation to a young adult standing outside the liquor store who hands money to either a stranger or relative asking them to purchase a pint for them and the clerk asks the buyer is this pint for you...oh ya, it is! it is still a bald face LIE)
I am more concerned why firearm manufacturers, glock, FN, Sig,, feel the need to severely discount their firearms to only a select group of purchasers in the first place?
how on God's green earth does fox's exploitative news report on the subject or the actual ruling truly infringe one iota on RBA? IMHO absolutely doesn't.
does it mean you can not gift a firearm purchased from a FFL to someone ~ not in the least? what it does mean, is if you gift it, it must be a gift, pure and simple w/o strings (due consideration) attached. My darling bride still reminds me whenever i attempt to use 'her' gifted firearm given to her many years ago, that it is her's and i shouldn't get attached to it, even for a short period.
what is unclear to me is who turned the the former LE in? the FFL? How did this come to the attention of ATF and become an item in the first place ? that should be your concern.
ipse
quote
A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, from one person to another,made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money. unquote
http://thelawdictionary.org/gift/
ya'll got that concept down? made gratuitously with no consideration of blood or money...here we go...
The case involved the conviction of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., of Rocky Mount, Virginia, a former police officer who was convicted of claiming falsely that he was the buyer of a Glock 19 handgun, when in fact he was buying it for his uncle, Angel Alvarez.
After Alvarez sent Abramski a check for $400, Abramski went to a gun dealer in Collinsville, Virginia, who catered to police officers as customers. He filled out the government-required purchase form, marking “yes” to a question about whether he was the actual purchaser. After his conviction, he was given three years of probation.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/opinion-analysis-no-stand-in-gun-buyers-allowed/
how on God's green earth does the uncle giving his nephew $400 to buy a gun meet anyone's criteria of a gift? the arrogance of this former LE who went to a FFL, who severely discounts firearm costs only to LEs, to get his uncle a 'great' deal on a Glock and got caught with the deceit and decided to push the lie to the SC.
(liken the situation to a young adult standing outside the liquor store who hands money to either a stranger or relative asking them to purchase a pint for them and the clerk asks the buyer is this pint for you...oh ya, it is! it is still a bald face LIE)
I am more concerned why firearm manufacturers, glock, FN, Sig,, feel the need to severely discount their firearms to only a select group of purchasers in the first place?
how on God's green earth does fox's exploitative news report on the subject or the actual ruling truly infringe one iota on RBA? IMHO absolutely doesn't.
does it mean you can not gift a firearm purchased from a FFL to someone ~ not in the least? what it does mean, is if you gift it, it must be a gift, pure and simple w/o strings (due consideration) attached. My darling bride still reminds me whenever i attempt to use 'her' gifted firearm given to her many years ago, that it is her's and i shouldn't get attached to it, even for a short period.
what is unclear to me is who turned the the former LE in? the FFL? How did this come to the attention of ATF and become an item in the first place ? that should be your concern.
ipse
Last edited: