Oregon Firearms dealers punished for strawbuyer

[clearconscience]

Gun shop, online gun dealer settle case in Oregon killing


At first I was against this ruling but it does look like the pawn shop was negligent in transferring the firearms.

I don't see how the selling dealer was reaponsible for this though.


Somehow I'm sure this mother saw no time. They only seem to punish the people in the firearms industry.

Why not sue the mother and throw her in jail for life for the murder

Read More

 

[AMT]

I agree that the pawn shop was negligent. And the mother should be held accountable for giving the guns to her son. J&G and the pawn shop should file a lawsuit against her for lying on the 4473!

 

[User 1234]

These news stories misrepresent all of the key facts. This mentally ill man did not get a gun online. He got it from his mother who committed a felony by defrauding the gun store. The only possible error on the gun store's part was not asking why her name on the 4473 did not match the J&G invoice, but that definitely is not enough to show that the gun store knew a straw purchase was occurring. I'm fairly sure the store and J&G and their insurers wanted to avoid the risk of a liberal Oregon jury hitting them with a million dollar verdict simply because "guns are evil."

 

[clearconscience]

Here's another article, seems the mother who was the main problem in all this skates out with no jail time. Usual.
She did have a suit against her for the $400k.

It's also says (incorrectly) that the son purchased a fully automatic AK47


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sf...uns-for-killer-son-will-pay-400K-10418363.php

 

[ThemGunsThough]

It's also says (incorrectly) that the son purchased a fully automatic AK47

Yeah, that editor should be fired. The correct term is fully semi-automatic.

 

[jbett98]

If you know your son is mentally ill, why would you provide him with firearms.

 

[User 1234]

I tried to email the author to politely explain why it could not have been an FA, but their site does not work for phones. Can someone who is on a computer email him?
Bob Egelko, Courts Reporter - San Francisco Chronicle

If it was FA it would have entailed a Form 4 and seven months of BATFE processing.

 

[BAC19]

If you know your son is mentally ill, why would you provide him with firearms.

She should have been thrown in jail.

 

[BAC19]

Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.27 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the "actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)" and states, "You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person."28 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.29 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.30 - Giffords Law Center

 

[bgdawgrr]

Small aside that I'm not clear on.
I purchased a firearm as a gift for my daughter. When I was picking it up, I clearly asked if gifting it to my daughter was OK.
The answer was yes as she is a direct family member and transfer is ok fed and WA law.
How is this different than a straw purchase? (My daughter has no restrictions on owning firearms btw)
Couldn't she claim she "gifted" the firearms to the son, which basically, she did if he didn't pay her for them.

 

[mkwerx]

World Pawn would get zero of my business if I lived in North Bend, but only because they caved to "no online sales" BS. THEY screwed the pooch by selling to someone not listed on the invoice. J&G should have been released from the suit. Mental's mommy should be behind bars for a host of federal offences, as well as accessory to murder in Oregon.

 

[titsonritz]

The handgun Boyce used was one of two semi-automatic pistols Boyce's mother helped buy for her mentally disturbed son, the lawsuit says.

The lowlife was obviously mentally disturbed, he murdered a stranger and light her body on fire, them offed himself when busted but I want to know and the article makes no mention if he was diagnosed with a mental illness, been through the system and was a prohibited person. If he wasn't then there is no law against a parent buying a child a weapon (tell me no one here has done it).

The suit claimed World Pawn Exchange and J&G. "knew or reasonably should have known" Diane Boyce was a straw buyer for her son and "should have refused to sell or transfer" guns to her.

How's that? Are they freaking mind readers? J&G is in flipping AZ, how is any of this their fault?

 

[titsonritz]

Small aside that I'm not clear on.
I purchased a firearm as a gift for my daughter. When I was picking it up, I clearly asked if gifting it to my daughter was OK.
The answer was yes as she is a direct family member and transfer is ok fed and WA law.
How is this different than a straw purchase? (My daughter has no restrictions on owning firearms btw)
Couldn't she claim she "gifted" the firearms to the son, which basically, she did if he didn't pay her for them.

Precisely.

 

[CLT65]

From the article (emphasis mine):

"If it were not so easy for a dangerously mentally troubled killer to obtain a gun on the Internet, Kirsten Englund would be alive today, with her two sons and loving family,'' said Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer for Englund's estate. He also is vice president of litigation at the nonprofit coalition The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Maybe I missed it, but was the son legally prohibited? I'm having trouble seeing where the purchase differed much from buying a gun in stock at a gun store, except for the fact that the Brady Bunch wants to make "internet sales" out to be something they aren't.

I didn't quite understand the what and how of the straw purchase that happened, and why it was a civil suit instead of criminal charges, and why the businesses agreed to what they did. I do know for a fact that some gun shops will fudge the rules for expediency when it comes to this type of thing, and whenever I've seen it happen I've thought it will come back to bite them some day. If I had a gun shop I would do my utmost to dot my I's and cross my T's on every little thing, as well as reserve my right to refuse a sale or transfer whenever it smelled fishy at all. I wouldn't want to get in legal trouble or get sued by some gun control activist, but most importantly I don't want bad people to have guns any more than anyone else does.

There may have been some rule bending by the businesses involved and maybe they should pay the piper for that (I don't know), but primarily this looks like a case that the Brady Bunch found and ran with to score some points for gun control.

 

[Ura-Ki]

How is this a Straw Purchase? If the kid was not adjudicated as mentally unfit, then there was no crime committed!
If the mother willfully purchased firearms for her son knowing he was mentally unstable, then there is cause, but so far, no legal president against it ( though we all know it's wrong) so there is no crime there ether!

How bout we punish the actual crime here and not make chit up on the fly and run with it for the cause of Common Sense Gun Control! And F-K the Brady bunch, Bloomberg, and Giffords too, bunch of anti American bottom suckers that what they are! How about we report actual facts instead of opinions with their writers given anti slant!

 

[jordanka16]

Small aside that I'm not clear on.
I purchased a firearm as a gift for my daughter. When I was picking it up, I clearly asked if gifting it to my daughter was OK.
The answer was yes as she is a direct family member and transfer is ok fed and WA law.
How is this different than a straw purchase? (My daughter has no restrictions on owning firearms btw)
Couldn't she claim she "gifted" the firearms to the son, which basically, she did if he didn't pay her for them.

That's not a straw purchase because she is allowed to own a firearm, it is only a straw purchase if you are buying it for someone who is not legally allowed to own it.

I dont know the details but if he was barred from owning a firearm then her filling out the form for him is a straw purchase. If he wasnt, then she didn't break any law.

 

[justcuz]

Interestedly, 3o- yo, Jeff Boyce was a suspect only in the murder when he alledgedly took his life in jail and truly wasn't charged for the murder but had quite a spree as outlined here, Kidnapping and carjacking suspect Jeffrey Boyce also an Oregon murder suspect

This is pointed out because being someone touted as having a MH issue(s) seems to be cognizant of his actions.

Me thinks something is rotten in this entire scenario of events.

 

[titsonritz]

Around the time of the North Bay carjackings, Boyce's mother had contacted San Francisco police and told them her son was mentally unstable and had a concealed weapons permit.

If this is true, why again is the gun dealer and J&G getting shafted?

 

[titsonritz]

That's not a straw purchase because she is allowed to own a firearm, it is only a straw purchase if you are buying it for someone who is not legally allowed to own it.

I dont know the details but if he was barred from owning a firearm then her filling out the form for him is a straw purchase. If he wasnt, then she didn't break any law.

But the gun dealer and J&G did.

 

[jordanka16]

But the gun dealer and J&G did.

I don't know the details, but the local dealer could have by selling it to someone other than who was listed as the buyer on the invoice, I'm not totally sure how that works.

J&G did nothing wrong at all. They simply shipped the gun to a dealer.