Posted on 03/26/2013 9:53:39 AM PDT by mnehring
His intention was to take possession of the firearm after paying the cost of the firearm from his own pocket.
He therefore meets the criteria of the law.
It doesn't matter when he decided that he intended to turn the firearm over to the police, the fact is that he purchased a firearm with his own money, intending to take possession of the firearm for himself. IOW, he was the "actual buyer" of the firearm as required by law.
This was never a straw purchase.
Regards.
Let him argue it before a court. How many ‘straw’ purchasers have made the same argument?
..also, the gun dealer came to pretty much the same conclusion when they refused to transfer the firearm to Kelly. They believed he was dishonest in his intentions regarding the purchase.
Abundy is correct, and he would know.
FReegards Abundy!
He tried to make a “straw man” gun purchase, and his dog killed an endangered species. Both are federal felonies, aren’t they?
Mark Kelly is not a peasant.
And that worked out so well, eventually, for Sheriff Joe in Maricopa./sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.