I heard a little on a Supreme Court Decision today on so called straw purchases. This is my understanding without all the facts of the case:
Seems a fellow bought a handgun and then sold it to his uncle.
Now the purchaser got into some unrelated beef with the law.
Somehow during the investigation of that offence, the powers to be
found that he had purchased a firearm in the past, Again, unrelated to his current offence. Well, the guy was convicted for whatever.
Now, apon sentecing, the court tacked on a few more years, claiming
that the defendent had in the past made a straw purchase.
Now our "bad guy" appeals the straw purchase tack on.
It should be noted that the uncle was not a prohibited person and could leagally purchase a firearm.
The court upheld the straw purchase tack on.
Now, why should we care?
Well, the supreme court ruled that if you purchase a firearm and then latter
give or sell that firearm to someone else, you are guillty of a straw purchase.
That means that all private sales of firearms are illegal straw purchases.
Reguardless if the person you sell to is prohibited or not.
WTF??? now this is only my take on the news report I listened to today.
Anyone else know any more on this?