-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
NYC, gun dealers both hail sting ruling
- Thread starter GLENGLOCKER
- Start date
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
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.
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.
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
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