What would you think about this?

[TomSudz]

Guys, I was thinking about this for a little bit and I'm wondering what the rest of you would think about it. I'm no fan of more gun laws, I think we have more than enough and should start getting rid of them. The problem is that I found an area that I think does need to be addressed.

Let me give the background. Last week a man with a PFA (protection from abuse order) against him (here in PA that means forfeiture of weapons and ability to purchase) went to his former wife's home with a handgun and took their child at gunpoint. Part of his stated intentions was to kill his family. A police pursuit ensued which ended with the police (both local and state) rushing the car to save the child. The child was successfully brought from the vehicle. Unfortunately during the event, 2 State Troopers were shot, one fatally. (before the questions start, they were wearing vests. Apparently the bullet ricocheted off of the trauma plate into his neck) The perp was removed from the gene pool.

Here's my problem. The firearm was purchased by the guys girlfriend last month. Apparently, the woman did a straw purchase for him because he can't buy a gun.

Now to my question. Would you guys think it would be OK for there to be a law that a person who does a straw purchase (seems to be happening more and more) for a weapon used in a crime to also be charged with that crime? As an example, this woman would be charged with kidnapping and murder. I think something like this would be an actual deterrent. What do you guys think?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[M1Riflenut]

I think any good lawyer could get you off as it would be hard to prove it was intentionally bought for someone else. Of course there are those dumb enough to admit it,but most would say it was taken without authorization.

[Dave]

I understood that the guns used at Columbine were straw purchases (at least one or some) and I never heard that the lady who purchased them was ever prosecuted. Just another un-enforced law which gets everyone to cry "there otta be a law!".

[Ken The Kanuck]

As our gun registration laws up here have proven, only the law abiding obey the laws, the criminals do not.

A man willing to murder is hardly concerned about breaking some paper law.

KTK

[Louis of PA]

Now to my question. Would you guys think it would be OK for there to be a law that a person who does a straw purchase (seems to be happening more and more) for a weapon used in a crime to also be charged with that crime? As an example, this woman would be charged with kidnapping and murder. I think something like this would be an actual deterrent. What do you guys think?

Tom, the mindset of many in our society is that nobody is responsible for anything. If that woman were to be prosecuted, as she should be, the media would likely portray her as a "victim" of some sort. I have no idea whether she feels any culpability in this killing; people today are being raised to be "guilt free"; no shame, no guilt, no personal responsibility.

Very destructive to our society.

Louis of PA

[TomSudz]

Ken, I understand what you're saying, but my point would be that maybe the girlfriend would not buy the gun if she knew she was going for anything he did with it. Let's face it, if someone asks you to buy a gun for them, wouldn't you wonder why they just didn't buy it themselves? It seems that more and more when I see these repeat offenders involved in a crime with a gun, the girlfriend bought the gun. I'm just saying that if you buy a gun for somebody that you know can't buy a gun, you do the time for what they do, too. In most cases it's not overly hard to prove, especially when most of the time, these geniuses are in the store pointing out which one they want. And, yes, I know, if they're in the store pointing it out, why still sell it to the girl? Because she checks the box that says it's for her.

[Timmer]

I always wanted to add one more amendment to the US Constitution:
A person is responsible for their actions. Also as person is found innocent or guilty. If guilty then determine if sane or insane. Sure would simplify things in my opinion.

[2barearms]

Since we don't know the whole story I'm loathe to make a judgment
about the man or his family. However, since this is one area of the law
where some cretin named Lautenberg, and I can't say what I think
about him without getting banned, got the Domestic Violence Balogne
law passed, you now have a misdemeanor crime that makes you a
prohibited person. You can have a simple verbal argument with any
member of your family and end up losing your rights. All the wifes
lawyer had to do was claim she was in fear of her life and the rest
is history. He could be a normal guy and been brutalized by her attorney
and went off the deep end? Bad law, bad results.

[Sunray]

That's not a firearm law issue. It's an enforcement issue. A 'straw' purchase is already illegal. No need for more laws to make it more illegal.

[jon_norstog]

There's the criminal aspect of the straw purchase, then there's civil liability. It might be worth looking into to see if the local prosecutor is going after the lady.

In any case, the families of two officers have a pretty good case against her. If she has anything at all, she'll probably lose it.