Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mnehring
At the risk of the flames, this is simply not a correct interpretation.

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.

21 posted on 03/26/2013 10:54:37 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Abundy

Let him argue it before a court. How many ‘straw’ purchasers have made the same argument?


22 posted on 03/26/2013 11:01:06 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Abundy

..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.


23 posted on 03/26/2013 11:06:27 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson