Guns & Leather Hired to Destroy Three Brand New Guns!

[Sidewinder]

I was listening to the "Guns and Leather" radio show (99.7) tonight, Sunday, April 17th, 2016 and was shocked at what is going on in the Nashville area. If anyone can get a transcript of the last part of the show and post it, that would be great. It would help others understand how an anti-gun, New York company is trying to undermine the integrity of our firearm industry locally.

 

They can't buy firearms being out of state. Apparently, they are getting anti-gun locals to do it for them. The objective is to make up a video which portrays them walking in, buying AR-15s and a hunting rifle, and walking out minutes later. After the massive lies and smear tactics footage is shot, the New York company wants the rifles destroyed, locally. I guess they don't want them to be called in as evidence, in case this sham backfires on them.

 

They called, and hired, Guns and Leather to destroy these brand new, in the box, guns! Guns and Leather did not know what was going on, until they asked some questions and did some research. Maybe we can get Phil Valentine to do a special show, outing these New York scumbags for the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, haters they are. In good ole western movie lingo, they are trying to frame us or to set us up in the worst light.

 

They need to be exposed. Someone, please contact the people that can expose these lying/scamming New Yorkers. Thanks.

[Possumslayer]

On my way home from work I heard them talking about that ...... The store that sold em called ATF, I'm guessing they decided to liberal to prosecute.

[Trekbike]

So did G&L refuse or do as requested?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Possumslayer]

So did G&L refuse or do as requested?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I think they cut em up before they found out what was going on...

[DaveTN]

They need to be exposed. Someone, please contact the people that can expose these lying/scamming New Yorkers. Thanks.

Expose them for what? We are all very familiar with the anti-gun groups. There have been plenty of threads here about them. Two years ago Bloomberg said he would spend $50 million on gun control measures. They have been here filming at our gun shows, they have had people elude to the fact they were convicted felons to see if people would sell to them (they will). This has been going on for a long time.

I don’t think G&L could do much about these guys. Maybe if they knew they might refuse to sell to them, but I don’t know why they would. If this group wants to pay for guns to be destroyed; so be it, it helps in the industry and our economy. (Don’t tell them that though, if they find out they are helping our country they will quit doing it)

[nightrunner]

It's been several years, but I was selling a glock on here and a guy from Brooklyn tried to buy it and have me mail it to him for an extra $200. Or drive it up there and meet him in Pennsylvania. I just brushed it off but turned out there were similar offers to other TGO members selling pistols on here. I'm still not sure if it was someone wanting an illegal gun or if it was a probe from the Feds. And this was when TGO was MUCH smaller than it is now.

[10-Ring]

And people think I'm crazy for wanting to build a wall around Tennessee.

[Possumslayer]

The point is, they are straw gun purchases and atf is turning its back on them.....

[DaveTN]

The point is, they are straw gun purchases and atf is turning its back on them.....

They aren’t straw purchases. They are buying the guns and destroying them; that isn’t a straw purchase. If they bought them and transferred ownership to the anti-gun people; it would be a straw purchase.

[Possumslayer]

They aren’t straw purchases. They are buying the guns and destroying them; that isn’t a straw purchase. If they bought them and transferred ownership to the anti-gun people; it would be a straw purchase.

if I go to another state and give a native of that state money to buy me a gun , what is that called?

[Hershmeister]

And people think I'm crazy for wanting to build a wall around Tennessee.

We should get New York to pay for it

[BigK]

if I go to another state and give a native of that state money to buy me a gun , what is that called?

 

I think the key to whether it's a straw purchase revolves around whether the d-bags who supplied the money ever actually took possession of the guns. If they took ownership, I agree, it was a straw purchase. If they just gave away money for someone to buy a gun just to have it destroyed, I don't think it qualifies as a straw purchase.

 

Either way, I don't want the issue pressed. IMO, the gov't shouldn't have the right to regulate firearm purchases anyway. So, as much as I hate anti-gunners, I still don't want BS laws used against ANYONE.

[Possumslayer]

I think the key to whether it's a straw purchase revolves around whether the d-bags who supplied the money ever actually took possession of the guns. If they took ownership, I agree, it was a straw purchase. If they just gave away money for someone to buy a gun just to have it destroyed, I don't think it qualifies as a straw purchase.

Either way, I don't want the issue pressed. IMO, the gov't shouldn't have the right to regulate firearm purchases anyway. So, as much as I hate anti-gunners, I still don't want BS laws used against ANYONE.

yall should listen tooo the show next week ....... The guy that brought the guns in said "they belong tooo my company, I have been told tooo have them destroyed ".
Guns and leather even offered tooo buy the guns....

[Lumber_Jack]

if I go to another state and give a native of that state money to buy me a gun , what is that called?

 

 

Unless you buy the guns for someone who cannot legally purchase them and actually transfer them to that person, it's not a straw purchase.  

 

If someone gives you money to buy a gun and destroy it, I don't see how that's a straw purchase.  

[Lumber_Jack]

yall should listen tooo the show next week ....... The guy that brought the guns in said "they belong tooo my company, I have been told tooo have them destroyed ".
Guns and leather even offered tooo buy the guns....

 

 

regardless of what he said, the gun belongs to the individual who purchased them.  

[Possumslayer]

regardless of what he said, the gun belongs to the individual who purchased them.

so she is a straw dealer?

[Oh Shoot]

Unless you buy the guns for someone who cannot legally purchase them and actually transfer them to that person, it's not a straw purchase. 

 

 

The term itself aside, ATF considers any purchase from FFL where a person gives you the money up front to buy it for him illegal, whether that person can legally own firearms or not.

 

See 4473 for specific example between legal "gift" and illegal purchase for someone else.

 

Note that this recently went all the way to SCOTUS at least regarding lying on the 4473 (the cop who bought a firearm for his brother in another state, even though it was transferred in that other state through a FFL).

 

- OS

[Lumber_Jack]

The term itself aside, ATF considers any purchase from FFL where a person gives you the money up front to buy it for him illegal, whether that person can legally own firearms or not.

 

See 4473 for specific example between legal "gift" and illegal purchase for someone else.

 

Note that this recently went all the way to SCOTUS at least regarding lying on the 4473 (the cop who bought a firearm for his brother in another state, even though it was transferred in that other state through a FFL).

 

- OS

 

 

Right, I think the issue here is that the money is given to buy the gun "for you" not "for them".  If the gun is destroyed before it leaves the state, how is it illegal.  Yes, you are performing a task with someone else's money, but if the firearm is never transferred or is never intended to be transferred, is it still illegal? 

 

 

If Michael Bloomberg sends me $550 in the mail with the stipulation that I buy a Glock and melt it down, is that illegal.  

Edited April 18, 2016 by Lumber_Jack

[Oh Shoot]

Right, I think the issue here is that the money is given to buy the gun "for you" not "for them".  If the gun is destroyed before it leaves the state, how is it illegal.  Yes, you are performing a task with someone else's money, but if the firearm is never transferred or is never intended to be transferred, is it still illegal? 

 

 

If Michael Bloomberg sends me $550 in the mail with the stipulation that I buy a Glock and melt it down, is that illegal.  

 

Ah, now I get the nuance, and you're almost certainly right that it is not a crime, as the example wording in the 4473 is buying the firearm "for" someone else, which would certainly require at least the intent to give the firearm to him.

 

- OS

[MacGyver]

As far as I'm concerned, anti-gun groups cans spend all the money they want buying guns and then destroying them.  

[DaveTN]

if I go to another state and give a native of that state money to buy me a gun , what is that called?

A gift. As long as you don't transfer ownership.

[JayC]

Technically they are charged with lying on the government form, not with buying the firearm as a straw purchase.

 

Again, a straw purchase itself is only a crime if you knowingly intended to purchase a firearm for somebody that is a prohibited person.  And technically you can be charged with this crime without going through an FFL.  But, the 4473 has a question on it, and the easier charge is to prove you lied on a government form.

 

The SCOTUS case doesn't touch on the legality of purchasing a firearm for somebody else that you know is NOT a prohibited person, if that police officer had properly marked the 4473, was denied, and he took the government to court for denying him a firearm he may well have won the case, because under federal law there are examples that are perfectly legal to purchase a firearm for somebody else.

 

Here is the ruling from SCOTUS on the case you mention: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_5468.pdf

 

The only finding in the case is lying on the 4473 - 'We hold that such a misrepresentation is punishable under the statue"

 

Truth is the uncle probably had greater standing to argue that the ATF's form 4473 was prohibiting him from purchasing firearms at a better price...  there is some case law in the 5th circuit that would seem to backup this line of thinking.

 

The term itself aside, ATF considers any purchase from FFL where a person gives you the money up front to buy it for him illegal, whether that person can legally own firearms or not.

 

See 4473 for specific example between legal "gift" and illegal purchase for someone else.

 

Note that this recently went all the way to SCOTUS at least regarding lying on the 4473 (the cop who bought a firearm for his brother in another state, even though it was transferred in that other state through a FFL).

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Technically they are charged with lying on the government form, not with buying the firearm as a straw purchase.

 

....

 

That was indeed the basis of the  case regarding the cop and his brother.

 

Note that Scalia's dissent in the matter was that there was simply no provision in federal law for question 11a on the 4473 to being with. So folks are convicted of violating an agency's "rule" rather than actual federal firearm law.

 

- OS

Edited April 18, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

Agreed, but he signed the document under penalty of perjury....  This is a perfect example of better to dot your i's and cross your t's when getting standing than to get caught and trying defend yourself.

 

Better to fill out the form 100% correct get denied and challenge them in court, than fill it out incorrect, get caught and then try to challenge a law in court.

 

Which dovetails nicely with the conversation on how to deal with illegal postings of streets and parks around the state...

 

That was indeed the basis of the  case regarding the cop and his brother.

 

Note that Scalia's dissent in the matter was that there was simply no provision in federal law for question 11a on the 4473 to being with. So folks are convicted of violating an agency's "rule" rather than actual federal firearm law.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

Agreed, but he signed the document under penalty of perjury....  This is a perfect example of better to dot your i's and cross your t's when getting standing than to get caught and trying defend yourself.
 
Better to fill out the form 100% correct get denied and challenge them in court, than fill it out incorrect, get caught and then try to challenge a law in court.
 
Which dovetails nicely with the conversation on how to deal with illegal postings of streets and parks around the state...

True, but this statement makes me think none of that really mattered...

Federal agents found that receipt while executing a search warrant at Abramski’s home after he became a suspect in a different crime.

Edited April 18, 2016 by DaveTN