JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Just wondering could the dad buying the gun be considered a 'straw purchase' as it is obvious he intended it to be the 'sons' gun. ?

AND - one more 'sidebar' - how is it allowed to be called a 'Manhunt' when the mother is being sought out as well? I am surprised this isn't being brought up considering the current state of 'affairs'.
 
Just wondering could the dad buying the gun be considered a 'straw purchase' as it is obvious he intended it to be the 'sons' gun. ?
No question imo with the later info from Mom saying it's his Christmas present etc. At the time of purchase for the gun shop owner it would be impossible for gun shop owner to know. But after the purchase, kids and parents both say it's his.
 
Holy crap that press conference is illuminating. Worth watching if u want details of shooter, parents, and school. Makes it very clear what was going on.
I appreciated her openness and transparency. She provided a lot of details, a legal perspective and her personal feelings. I can say she herself is not a gun ally from what I saw, but recognizes the minefield of attacking the tool instead of all of the people responsible. I think she will work hard for justice.
 
BTW, furry palms are nice!!!
Saves on hand-warmer costs, I reckon...

Hand warmers.jpeg
 
Last Edited:
Just wondering could the dad buying the gun be considered a 'straw purchase' as it is obvious he intended it to be the 'sons' gun. ?

AND - one more 'sidebar' - how is it allowed to be called a 'Manhunt' when the mother is being sought out as well? I am surprised this isn't being brought up considering the current state of 'affairs'.
Saying "womanhunt" would considered misogynistic and saying "nonbinaryHunt" would be a hate crime. Considering we have a white male, the wokish will be happy to stick with manhunt.
 
Certainly looks that way...
I don't know about his state, but even in WA you can buy a gun for a family member and it is not a straw purchase.

See 4(a), no BGC on family transfers: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9.41&full=true#9.41.113
Someone under 18 can possess a firearm in certain circumstances, including on property they reside on: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.042

The Federal law isn't as clear cut but Form 4473 specifically says buying guns as a gift is OK. And SCOTUS essentially backs this up:
The individual who sends a straw to a gun store to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer, in every way but the most formal; and that distinguishes such a person from one who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party.

Abramski v. US: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1493#OPINION_3-9ref
The dissent in the same case is more clear about gifts from a Federal perspective:

Guns Intended as Gifts. In the Government's view, an individual who buys a gun "with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person" is the gun's "true purchaser." ATF, Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 165 (2005) (hereinafter 2005 ATF Guide). The Government's position makes no exception for situations where the gift is specifically requested by the recipient (as gifts sometimes are). So long as no money changes hands, and no agency relationship is formed, between gifter and giftee, the Act is concerned only with the man at the counter.

So in WA, it appears someone under 18 may possess firearms in certain circumstances (at school is not one of them), that parents are allowed to transfer firearms to family members without doing a background check (though if you "cross state lines" (ugh) there may be issues not addressed here), and the Federal law does not prohibit buying guns as bona fide gifts.
 
I don't know about his state, but even in WA you can buy a gun for a family member and it is not a straw purchase.

See 4(a), no BGC on family transfers: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9.41&full=true#9.41.113
Someone under 18 can possess a firearm in certain circumstances, including on property they reside on: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.042
Yeah, I shoulda thought about that more before I put my hoof in my mouth. Even I-594 sez you give firearms to certain family members as a bona fide gift.
The Federal law isn't as clear cut but Form 4473 specifically says buying guns as a gift is OK.
I'm looking on one of my 4473s right now, and Page 4 of 6, under Question 11.a., Actual Transferee/Buyer, would seem to bear that out.

1638595791941.png
 
...
I'm looking on one of my 4473s right now, and Page 4 of 6, under Question 11.a., Actual Transferee/Buyer, would seem to bear that out.
...

Here's more context around what I quoted from that recent SCOTUS case I cited above which delineates why Congress would treat subsequent sales and bona fide gifts differently than a straw purchase -- put the quote above in bold, but when you look at the wider context, SCOTUS presumes Congress consciously chose to treat gifts and subsequent sales differently than a straw purchase due to a compromise in getting this passed. It is worth noting I guess, that a straw purchase and purchase with subsequent sale look an awful lot alike, except that with a straw purchase, you get the sale price upfront rather than invest your own money upfront (or buy with the intent to flip the gun). It's not that big of a difference, but it is the difference between living free and living in a cage:

But Abramski and the dissent draw the wrong conclusion from their observations about resales and gifts. Yes, Congress decided to regulate dealers' sales, while leaving the secondary market for guns largely untouched. As we noted in Huddleston, Congress chose to make the dealer the "principal agent of federal enforcement" in "restricting [criminals'] access to firearms." 415 U. S., at 824. And yes, that choice (like pretty much everything Congress does) was surely a result of compromise. But no, straw arrangements are not a part of the secondary market, separate and apart from the dealer's sale. In claiming as much, Abramski merely repeats his mistaken assumption that the "person" who acquires a gun from a dealer in a case like this one is the straw, rather than the individual who has made a prior arrangement to pay for, take possession of, own, and use that part of the dealer's stock. For all the reasons we have already given, that is not a plausible construction of a statute mandating that the dealer identify and run a background check on the person to whom it is (really, not fictitiously) selling a gun. See supra, at 9–15. The individual who sends a straw to a gun store to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer, in every way but the most formal; and that distinguishes such a person from one who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party.9 The line Congress drew between those who acquire guns from dealers and those who get them as gifts or on the secondary market, we suspect, reflects a host of things, including administrative simplicity and a view about where the most problematic firearm transactions—like criminal organizations' bulk gun purchases—typically occur. But whatever the reason, the scarcity of controls in the secondary market provides no reason to gut the robust measures Congress enacted at the point of sale.
 
Looking at this site it says state law 21 is min age for handgun buying from dealer.

Federal appears to allow temporary possession for specific purposes, not ownership.
But that's from 3 minutes of googling. I'm no expert just passing along what I saw.
20EFC5CC-8B05-4A51-B10F-986DCBBA4680.jpeg
5650E782-1A3C-48D7-A680-2D339A431F8D.jpeg

Edit:deleted article source cuz looks like anti gun site.
 
Last Edited:
Looking at this site it says state law 21 is min age for handgun buying from dealer.
...
Good find. That led me to this, specifically (x): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

There are a number of exceptions, see (x)(3)(A)(ii) which seems to say that a minor can possess a handgun with prior written consent of the parent. It's weird how that sentence ends with "except" though and then discusses transportation requirements with respect to using a handgun on a ranch or farm, but the previous parapgraph also makes it OK for kids to use guns on ranches and farms (and hunting, training, etc), so if (ii) was limited to such activities, it would be entirely a duplicate of (i) which makes no sense.

In any event, the prior written consent has to be carried by the kid, so this isn't something one can do after the fact.

This is better, (x)(3)(A)(iv), putting it all together:

(3) This subsection does not apply to—
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile—
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;

So it sounds like, in WA at least, while you Federally can't give a pistol to a kid, you can lend the kid a pistol (subject to the WA restrictions on place where a juvenile can possess a gun). And if you are on a farm or ranch, you have express Federal exceptions.
 
That one right there! The administration had already seen his drawing showing that he was going to kill students, as well as the statement on said drawing confirming same. How his backpack was not searched and how he was sent back to class simply boggles the mind of any thinking person.
Better yet, the school should have red flagged the kid with a court order. Even if he didn't have it in his backpack, it sounds like he had easy access to it at home and would have just returned to campus with it another day.
 
I can't imagine how the school cannot be considered criminally negligent after watching that. Also makes it pretty clear parents are trash. I also cannot fathom how the kids who knew he was going to do something didn't tell someone.
They DID tell their parents and other children. Some of them did - that was on the news from the gitgo. I posted about it and so did other people.

I believe that some parents AND children told some authority figures AKA as the POLICE and not just the school BUT, BUT AND BUT... the POLICE ISSUED SEVERAL STATEMENTS that PREVIOUS REPORTS about a PRE PLANNED SHOOTING - ATTACK ON THE SCHOOL were NOT TRUE. THEY SAID NOT TO BELIEVE WHAT SOME KIDS AND THEIR PARENTS HAD MENTIONED TO SOME 'AUTHORITY FIGURES'.

BLA AND BLA.

PLUS THE POLICE AND I THINK THE 'SCHOOL' IMMEDIATELY SAID THIS TO COVER THEIR @@@ES, my opinion, the VERY DAY/EVENING ON THE NEWS. I HEARD IT ON OTA FREE TV STATIONS IN MT AND I READ IT IN MANY MICHIGAN NEWSPAPERS AND ALL OVER ONLINE.

SO THIS IS JUST LIKE OTHER PREPLANNED SHOOTINGS/ATTACKS/MURDERS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER MURDERERS ALL OVER THE USA IN MANY CASES.

THE PARENTS KNEW THAT THEY HAD A FREAK POTENTIAL KILLER, THE SCHOOL KNEW IT, THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS KNEW IT, THE POLICE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE FBI IN SOME CASES, AND MANY OTHER AUTHRORITY FIGURES HAD ALL OF THE WARNING SIGNS AND ACTUAL PROVEN REPORTS AND NO ONE DID 'JACK SQUAT' TO STOP IT ALL.

Old Lady Cate
PS: I do believe that we have some psycho babble MK ULTRA still going on in THIS COUNTRY too. NOT in all cases but in many of them. TOO much crapola is STILL GOING ON and has gone on and some 'programs' may have DIFFERENT NAMES but the same old s is still going on in MY opinion.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top