Kaine says gun law will deter 'rogue' buyers

Richmond Times-Dispatch ^ | May 11, 2007 | TYLER WHITLEY

[3AngelaD]

I detest Kaine but I hope he sticks it to them.

[BTCM]

Agreed-—our Gov. is no prize but he is right on this one.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

The gun laws in this country aren’t designed to make sense. They are designed to slowly strip the RKBA from the people without them knowing it.

[VeniVidiVici]

4473 asks the buyer if he indeed is the actual recipient/purchaser and even gives examples of straw purchases on page 4.

If Bloomie’s minions answered Form 4473 truthfully then there is no way the dealer ever should have sold the gun.

If they lied on the 4473 then the fake purchasers should be thrown in jail.

I can’t find this gifting section of the 4473 which you mentioned in your post. Where is it?

[Myrddin]

I think this law was crafted to halt Bloomberg's hired thugs from conducting attempted straw sales to sting firearms dealers in other states. More states should follow the example to put Bloomberg's thugs out of business.

[Myrddin]

Guns may be possessed illegally, such a felon whose punishment included the loss of RKBA, but for the otherwise law abiding citizen, there is no such thing as an illegal gun, knife or other arm.

You can certainly make an illegal gun. Saw off a shotgun barrel below the specified length. Build a T/C Encore with a rifle buttstock and a 15" pistol barrel. That's a short barreled rifle by ATF definition. It requires a special application, a $200 tax stamp and SBR engraving on the frame. I could go on, but the point is that it is possible to create a gun that is illegal. That was a centerpiece of the Emerson decision. The sawed off shotgun was deemed not to be a "military" weapon. The case was goofy and wrong. It continues to haunt us.

[2harddrive]

Rogue pork.....

[2harddrive]

That was NOT the Emerson decision, which happenned early in the 21st century, in Texas. You are referring to a decision of the 1930’s...may have been Parker vs US? It was used by the anti-gunners as an excuse to ban machine guns, etc. They TOTALLY distorted the Court’s judgement.

[Myrddin]

It was U.S v Miller in 1939. Commentary on the ruling here.

[neutronsgalore]

Well I’ll be darned, you are correct! The last time I purchased a firearm retail (’91?...’92?) I could swear the section that asked you if were the actual buyer of the firearm was larger and asked you to list name and address of the intended receipient if you intended to purchase it as a gift. Bummer!

[VeniVidiVici]

That’s ok. They changed it again in just the last few years too.