Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
9. nra in it's nutshell
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:41 AM
Apr 2013

travis: How should the gun store have known it was a straw purchase? Do they have ESP?

lawsuit filed on behalf of the family of the murdered Black Chicago police officer “accused the pawnshop of negligence for failing to recognize clues that the gun’s buyer was making an illegal purchase then blocking the sale… accusing its owner Bruce Edward Archer of failing to follow guidelines established by the gun industry’s trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, about how to detect a straw purchaser.” (Chicago Tribune, April 25th, 2013).

my source appears a rightwing website, but sorta backs into an acceptable position after a bit of sleaze talk. linked just for the above paragraph: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2013/04/27/mississipi-gun-shops-blamed-for-chicago-black-murderers/comment-page-1/

A moot point now, but relevant to OP, the nra in it's nutshell: Mar15, 2013. As part of its blitzkrieg against post-Newtown gun control legislation, the {nra} is trying to kill the provision of the Senate bill that cracks down on gun trafficking by imposing harsher penalties for “straw purchases” — that’s when someone buys a gun for someone who is prohibited from owning one, or for someone who is intending to commit a crime with it. There is broad bipartisan support in both chambers for the measure, which would make straw purchasing a federal crime punishable by up to 25 years in prison.
.. But this week, the NRA is demanding that the Senate change its drafting language: If a person buys a gun and sells it to another person, who in turn sells it to yet another person, the bill’s language could be used to punish the initial buyer of the gun, the NRA says. “It potentially holds people liable for the intention of parties far down the chain of possession.." .. The NRA also wants to change language allowing the govt to confiscate a convicted straw purchaser’s guns and ammunition..

The NRA’s position has outraged those who support the legislation as written. Groups supporting stricter gun control laws, like Mayors Against Illegal Guns, believe cracking down on straw purchases — one of the most common ways criminals get guns — and background checks, another key component of the package, are essential parts of the new legislation.
“As long as straw purchasers are willing to buy on behalf of criminals, law enforcement needs effective tools to pursue these individuals by making this activity a federal criminal offense instead of a slap on the wrist,” said Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), one of five Republican co-sponsors of the House bill.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), one of the original sponsors of the House bill, told The Hill, “Reports about the draft NRA proposal suggest that it would water down even current law, making it harder — not easier — for law enforcement officials to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by increasing the threshold for convicting straw purchasers.”


Whee, since it wasn't 'watered down' as per nra wishes, did we win something by getting nothing accomplished? (on fed level)

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Brady Campaign Sues Missi...»Reply #9