Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: NYC, gun dealers both hail sting ruling

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735

    Post imported post

    But U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak said Friday the court had found "that the city's actions do not constitute a crime or fraud."

    This is not a final decision unless both parties agreed to allow a magistrate make a filal ruling. This is usually never done. The decision, though called that, is not a decision, it's a Report and Recomendation. The chief must sign off on it. Though both sides may like it in part and say they like it, both parties can write an objection to the parts they don't like. The chief judge takes it under advisement and makes a final ruling.

    Pollak agreed with the city's argument that the buyer's intent is the critical factor in a straw purchase. And in the purchases made by the city's investigators, the buyer did not hand over the purchased gun later.
    "No 'straw' sale took place because ownership was never transferred," the judge wrote.
    Bloomberg's criminal justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, applauded the decision.
    "What the court has said today is exactly what we've said — the only people who broke the law here were dealers who engaged in straw purchases," he said.
    Legally, dead wrong. The ATF form is signed under penalty of perjury, the dealer must accept it. The FBI approved the sale. If the purchaser then transfers the airearm to another, then the purchaser committed the crime, not the dealer.

    Now, if the goverment can prove that the dealer and purchaser were in cahootes with each other then that is a different story.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Quite so, color. If there was no secondarytransfer, then by this reasoning there was no "straw purchase" and the dealers commited no crime either. If the dealers had reason to believe that an illegal secondary transfer was going to take place, then they acted in bad faith in completing the transaction, but in the absence of an actual subsequent transfer, I don't see how it's legally actionable (that said, the ATF would certainly still fail to renew your license when it came up later, if they were aware of this).

    -ljp

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •