quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
The Kenosha Kid

That's fracking cool

1. I bought a gun.
2. I loaned it too a friend.

It is still my gun; not Kyle's.

Then shut the hell up.

quote:

Originally posted by Some Shot:
1. I bought a gun.
2. I loaned it too a friend.

It is still my gun; not Kyle's.

Then shut the hell up.

That would directly contradict what Kyle stated on the stand under oath….so that ship has sailed.

Mark Richards said that he was fired by the two previous attorneys who he felt were exploiting Kyle and using him to advance their issues. It seems the exploitation is now happening.

People have asked if Kyle will get his rifle back.

It is not Kyle's rifle. Dominick Black bought it.

Black has a court status conference scheduled for Monday 22 Nov 2021 w Judge Schroeder and Prosecutor Binger

One of the credits at the end of the excellent RazorFist clip -

“Binger’s Trigger Discipline by:

Alec Baldwin”

LOFL!!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
For anyone familiar with the “straw”* purchase issue, is there any guidance from the ATF or case law that defines how long a gun must be held by a purchaser before he can transfer it to someone else and not be accused of that crime?

There’s not case law that says X is illegal and a straw but Y is ok. It all comes down to the intent of the purchase.

This is rich.

https://twitter.com/leslibless...479465267207/photo/1

Per the "example", "Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money..."

I was not aware of this, and my opinion was that Black made the purchase and did not give the weapon to Kyle, but had intended to keep possession until Kyle was old enough, then transfer the gun legally.

The information since provided, has clarified my misunderstanding of the "straw purchase".

(and I still believe both were trying to do the right thing, but failed, according to law)

And I still am of the opinion that the entirety of the "straw purchase law" is to prevent illegal gun possession by those who should not (criminals, etc.).

And I realize "breaking the law" is still the issue.

So, I stand corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:
This is rich.

https://twitter.com/leslibless...479465267207/photo/1

Footnote: Sioux Falls, SD native and high school debate team member still trying to find his niche seen working at Mickey D's.

The singer actually sounded like Marty Robbins

Kyle was not a prohibited person. I've read the list in the 18 U.S.C. 922 (g) 5 times now and there's nothing there that applied to him. That doesn't mean the purchase wasn't a straw purchase because prohibited persons and straw sales are separate issues. One is not a prerequisite for the other.

Kyle's buddy bought the rifle using Kyle's money with the intent of Kyle receiving the rifle. That's a straw purchase. There's no Federal, Wisconsin, or Illinois law that prevented Kyle from owning the rifle. If his friend had used his own money instead of Kyle's and given Kyle the rifle, all would be good. Being an Illinois resident, Kyle would have to have a FOID, but there's no age restriction; he'd have to have a parent's or guardian's written permission to apply for one.

There's no time limit because all that matters is intent at the time of purchase. I can buy a rifle with the sole intent to give it to my minor son as a gift. At the time of purchase, I am the purchaser, I'm using my money, and I can honestly answer that I'm not purchasing the firearm on someone else's behalf. On the other hand, let's say my minor son saves his money, gives it to me, and I buy a rifle for him. That's a straw purchase, because my intent at the time is to buy it on his behalf. I cannot answer the question honestly. It doesn't matter if my plan is to give it to him 100 years from that point because my intent at the time I answered the question was to buy it on his behalf.

Let's say my son is not a minor. I can give him money, to buy himself a rifle. Again, at the time of purchase, he answers the question honestly because he is buying the rifle for himself.

Where it could be fun is, my son is not a minor and I give him money to buy a rifle as a gift to my wife. Straw purchase because he's buying it on my behalf. But, if he wants to buy a rifle to give as a gift to my wife, and I give him the money to do it; that's not a straw purchase. In both cases, I'm giving money to my son, he's buying a rifle, and my wife is getting a gift, but the intent is not the same. It's all about the intent.

Please drop a comment for our cowardly, traitous friends at black rife coffee.

These clowns really think they aren’t projecting a little too much? Always with the dudes in drag, etc…

https://youtu.be/Z3OltrYDZro

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
922(g) definitions are for the charge “prohibited person in possession of a firearm”. He was most certainly prohibited from completing a “lawful purchase” due to age.

It's the definition for prohibited persons in general as it applies to whom anyone can transfer or deliver a firearm to as well. The age limitation is specific to licensees.

"(b)It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(1)any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;”

I’m trying to wrap my head around the straw purchase thing and your comment about intent was an ah ha moment for me. I think I finally get it. The age thing being specific to licensees was another ah ha moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Underdog:
Please drop a comment for our cowardly, traitous friends at black rife coffee.

These clowns really think they aren’t projecting a little too much? Always with the dudes in drag, etc…

https://youtu.be/Z3OltrYDZro

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I am sure that one, it was making fun of the current state of the military and two, it has nothing to do with KR case.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
922(g) definitions are for the charge “prohibited person in possession of a firearm”. He was most certainly prohibited from completing a “lawful purchase” due to age.

It's the definition for prohibited persons in general as it applies to whom anyone can transfer or deliver a firearm to as well. The age limitation is specific to licensees.

"(b)It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(1)any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;”

I’m trying to wrap my head around the straw purchase thing and your comment about intent was an ah ha moment for me. I think I finally get it. The age thing being specific to licensees was another ah ha moment.

You’re real close. I deleted that other post as it wasn’t very detailed and I was in a hurry.

922 (g) (1-9) deals with who can and can not Lawfully POSSESS a firearm. Felons, mentally ill, domestic abusers, etc. the “transfer” language in (g)(1-9) does not involve transfer from a FFL.

While many of them are also prohibited from PURCHASING a firearm, that list isn’t inclusive under (a)(6). If I knowingly put down an incorrect address, I’m a prohibited person under (a)(6). And on and on.

The context that you’re attempting to classify “prohibited” as by quoting 922(g) is in fact incorrect as it applies to POSSESSION. Rittenhouse was a prohibited person due to age. The “correct” charge would be the (a)(6) violation not (g)(1-9).

Hope this helps and I hope it makes more sense to you.

Interesting to note that the RevComs are making a big showing at marches and protests.
Dee Williams of the Revolution Club (The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) spoke at the post verdict press conference along with BLM leaders and other Marxist\Socialist leaders.

Here’s Jesse Jackson with the Revolutionary Communist Party banner behind him, marching in Chicago.
Seems they crossed state lines to protest.


Link

well, then I guess we would know who's who.

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Jester814:
That does not sound like a straw purchase to me according to my understanding of a straw purchase.

Actually, it is. All day long. Dude A gives Dude B money to purchase a rifle. Dude A is a prohibited person from completing a lawful sale. Dude B goes into the gun store and gives materially false information to make an unlawful purchase appear to be lawful by falsely answering yes on question 21(a).

Some will naturally attempt to argue “well Kyle wasn’t a prohibited person”. Absolutely he was. Could he walk into that gun store and complete the sale himself? No. Then that naturally comes to the argument “well, then I commit a straw purchase for my kids...”. No that’s clearly not the same. As I understand it, there’s no relation to the original purchaser.

From a letter of the law standpoint, it’s a straw purchase.

Don’t know if Illinois has a state law against it, but it satisfies 18 USC.

I don't know the finer points of WI & IL statutes regarding straw purchases, but if the feds were to charge Dominick Black, I believe they'd have a very strong case against him.

Abramski v. United States went all the way to the Supreme Court. Abramski was a LEO in Roanoke, VA. He used his blue label discount to buy a Glock for his uncle in PA. He transferred ownership of the Glock through an FFL. Both he & his uncle were legal to own firearms.

The evidence that nailed Abramski to the wall was the check his uncle wrote him. It was dated before Abramski made the purchase, and on the memo line, his uncle wrote, "for Glock 19 handgun".

Black & Rittenhouse both testified that Rittenhouse gave money to Black for Black to buy the rifle. This wasn't a case of a parent or legal guardian buying a gun for his child. If Black used his own money to buy the rifle and told Rittenhouse, "I'll lend it to you when you want, and when you turn 18, I'll sell it to you," then they'd have an argument against straw purchase, but by federal law, I think it's clear cut.

I'm confused and possibly missed something. So in that case, NEITHER party was prohibited from purchasing the gun legally themselves, and one party did so in order to get it at a cheaper price, and then transferred it to the other person after the fact, but the money changed hands before the purchase. (making sure I have that part correct)

I thought to be a straw purchase it had to be an attempt to get around the law, or a background check or something?

What am I missing?