What would you think about this?

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?

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.

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!".

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

I'm of 2 minds on this. :runaway:

If they can prove that she knew he was going to do something anti-social (moreso than just an "improper person" in possession of a firearm) then, yeah, prosecute her for all its worth. But then there are already laws on the books to cover that (conspiracy, aiding & abetting, etc.).

It's kind of like my cousin loaning his car to his brother who has had a license suspension, & then the brother going out & robbing a liquor store with it. Do you prosecute the cousin for armed robbery? Yes, the cousin shouldn't have given up the keys. What he did was wrong (giving his keys to someone he KNOWS had a license suspension) but was he just doing one of those "favours" for his brother, thinking the brother was just running out for a pack of smokes, or did he KNOW (or have a strong suspicion) that the brother was going to knock off the liquor store? :confused:

Hard to prove knowledge/intent. And, as with the so-called "hate crimes" legislation, I don't want the authorities wriggling around in someone's head making life-altering decisions based on what they THINK he was thinking & when they THINK he was thinking it. :thdown:

As at least one other poster said, she's already guilty of a straw purchase. Hitting her with that is probably the best we can do under the circumstances.

There was a similar case in Baltimore about 5 years ago. A convicted felon (who everyone KNEW was a convicted felon) asked a female friend to buy him an AR so that he could go deer hunting; he used it to go on a shooting spree that resulted in several deaths. The SWAT guys put this idiot down, & the friend was convicted on federal charges for the straw purchase; she got a 5 year sentence.

I doubt that this woman was much brighter than the perp; she may have understood that what she did was not legal, but she obviously didn't think through the possible consequences. I've seen several sales at inner city gunshops where it was obvious to me that the buyer was buying the gun for someone else, but I have never seen a dealer refuse to sell despite that fact that the buyer appeared to know nothing about guns or the one she wanted to buy.

When you loan a car to someone, no, you can't anticipate what they'll do. But if you buy a gun for someone you know can't buy one, you can anticipate what they'll do, shoot something. Every time a cop gets shot with a gun that some punk's girlfriend bought because he couldn't, who suffers? The cop, his family, most everyone involved except the person who provides the gun. Big deal, 5 years, yay! Half the maximum. Proof? "Young lady, why did you buy the gun for your boyfriend?" "Because he couldn't." There's your proof.And what happens next? The discussion starts about why there's a need for more gun control, and then we suffer. Here in PA, every time Rendell wants to try more gun control, his mantra is that it will save cops lives. We all know it's B.S., but go ahead, say it out loud and you want cops to die. Well, I don't and I think if people started going to jail for some serious time, others might not put guns into criminals hands. As far as the gun stores that let it go on, and I have one nearby, I can't stand it. Unfortunately, the only thing I can do is not buy there and I don't.

However if you work for da mayer of New Yawk, making a straw purchase in another state is all fine and dandy.
If You are Dianne Feinstien, making a straw purchase is no problem. (she bought a rifle as a gift for her son)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomSudz

When you loan a car to someone, no, you can't anticipate what they'll do. But if you buy a gun for someone you know can't buy one, you can anticipate what they'll do, shoot something. Every time a cop gets shot with a gun that some punk's girlfriend bought because he couldn't, who suffers? The cop, his family, most everyone involved except the person who provides the gun. Big deal, 5 years, yay! Half the maximum. Proof? "Young lady, why did you buy the gun for your boyfriend?" "Because he couldn't." There's your proof.And what happens next? The discussion starts about why there's a need for more gun control, and then we suffer. Here in PA, every time Rendell wants to try more gun control, his mantra is that it will save cops lives. We all know it's B.S., but go ahead, say it out loud and you want cops to die. Well, I don't and I think if people started going to jail for some serious time, others might not put guns into criminals hands. As far as the gun stores that let it go on, and I have one nearby, I can't stand it. Unfortunately, the only thing I can do is not buy there and I don't.

---

Tom, your heart is in the right place, but unfortunately, the problem at present is that there are plenty of laws on the books, but no will to enforce them. I think that any plan to make a stronger law against "straw purchases" would be met with strong opposition from the very Liberals who demand more and more gun laws. They wring their hands at the thought of any poor, misguided perp going to jail for very long, and mandatory sentences are anathema to the Liberal judges.