SB134 Enhance straw purchase and receive stolen property crimes.

protias said:

You can't just pick and choose which laws you want to enforce. Then everything becomes inconsistent and is open to interpretation. No wonder why out country is so screwed up. The criminal always gets off easy while the law abiding gets screwed because of some technicality.

Click to expand...

Yes, they have that discretion. They do not have unlimiteed resources and have to make decisions.

Schlitz said:

Perhaps when they remove the 21 years old for a handgun crap I could support this. I don't see anything wrong with buying a friend a handgun who is under 21.

You're not putting anyone at risk by buying someone a handgun who is 20 years 364 days old.

Click to expand...

Your gripe is NOT with SB134, but with existing federal law.

Federal law does not distinguish between your situation above and buying for a known felon.

SB134 specifically applies to buying a gun with the intent to transfer it to someone you know or should reasoably know is prohibited from possessing it. Your friend/son/whatever who's 20.99yo is not prohibited from possessing a firearm, just buying one.

protias said:

You can't just pick and choose which laws you want to enforce. Then everything becomes inconsistent and is open to interpretation. No wonder why out country is so screwed up. The criminal always gets off easy while the law abiding gets screwed because of some technicality.

Click to expand...

Is that exactly what we heralded Jackson County District Attorney, Gerald Fox, for doing?

BROKENSPROKET said:

Is that exactly what we heralded Jackson County District Attorney, Gerald Fox, for doing?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should clarify, choosing to not charge one person with a crime and not another makes this very inconsistent, which leads to confusion and more criminals getting off from their crimes.

Outdoorsman1 said:

Actually, I am having a hard time finding anything wrong here....
...
If anyone see's something I am missing please feel free to inform me as to exactly why this is a bad bill and I will reconsider contacting my Reps.

Outdoorsman1

.....

Click to expand...

I can't open or read the links with my phone browser so I will just state what my concerns are.

First I would need to see exactly how they are defining a "Straw Purchase". Is the definition limited to only buying for someone who is not elligible(sp?) to buy on their own? Or does it also extend to buying for people who can otherwise legally purchase a firearm on their own?

For example, can you legally buy a firearm for a non-relative such as a boy/girl friend? How about a boss or co-worker? How about for a nephew or neice or uncle or aunt or parent or grand parent who doesn't live with you? Buying for a son or daughter is usually acceptably, but what about for a step-child? I know that sometimes a step-parent will go through the legal process to "adopt" a spouse's child so I assume there is some legal differentiation between step-kids who are also adopted and those who are not legally adopted apart from the parent's marriage.

My wife has kids and grandkids, I am unclear if it would be legal for me to buy any of them (apart from my wife) a firearm.

As to the receiving stolen property laws, I would need to see if the law requires a reasonable knowledge that the item in question is or might be stolen. How many firearms at gun shows and on sites like gunbroker are stolen where the seller may or may not know of the theft.

20+ years ago I bought a shotgun from a pawn shop, I had no way of know if that shotgun had ever been stolen. If someone 10 years ago had seen me with that shotgun at some skeet range and recognized it as having been stolen from them 35 years prior, would I be at risk of prosecution under the new laws? It may be a ridiculous (sp?) example, but it is a legitimate question.

When dealing with extremists, never underestimate how far they are willing to push an issue.

Hopefully I haven't strayed too far from the discussion.

Schlitz said:

Did it seem the straw purchase was for a guy with a ski mask on, pants down to his knees, with a stained wife beater? Or was it for a 18-20 year old is ban from buying a brand new handgun because we have laws that don't make sense in this country?

Click to expand...

Actually, I agree we have laws that do not make sence but this incident did not fall under that catagory... But I am pretty sure this was a straw purchase...You decide...

I was at the counter when 3 people came up and started looking at guns.. 2 males and one female. All three appeared kinda thug / gangbanger looking.... Hispanic (would have thought the same no matter what color), males had arm and neck tatooos, hat on backwards, etc.... You know the look... female looked a little better...

All three looked at the firearms and the males pointed to a few and the salesman let them handle the firearms. After checking out a few, they decided on one (a semi-auto). Then one of the males pulls a huge wad of cash from his front pocket and counts off NINE one hundred dollar bills (and puts the still large roll of bills back into his pocket). He hands the female the money and she proceeds to fill out the paperwork IN HER NAME and purchase the firearm. Keeping in mind, she never even held the pistol before purchase. After the paperwork was completed, they left the store....I was standing about 4 feet away and all this happend drectly in front of the salesman who was on the other side of the counter.

All above is literally true as I remember it like it was yesterday due to my being shocked that the salesman did not say anything or ask any questions as to why the males picked out the firearm of THEIR choice and the female purchased it in HER name...

Oh well, at least I do not have ever to concern myself with anything like that happening while I am in THAT store....

Outdoorsman1

treebound said:

I can't open or read the links with my phone browser so I will just state what my concerns are.

First I would need to see exactly how they are defining a "Straw Purchase". Is the definition limited to only buying for someone who is not elligible(sp?) to buy on their own? Or does it also extend to buying for people who can otherwise legally purchase a firearm on their own?

Click to expand...

Federal law already makes it a felony to buy a gun saying it is for you when it really isn't, regardless of the circumstances. That's been true since GCA 68.

SB134 says:

2. A person who violates sub. (2e) by intentionally providing false information
11regarding whether he or she is purchasing a firearm with the purpose or intent of
12transferring it to another whom the person knows or reasonably should know is
1presently prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law is guilty
2of a Class H felony and shall be fined not less than $500.

It also adds fines ($500-10,000) for providing false information (which could be applied to saying the gun is for you when it really isn't)