testtest

True or false

Status
Not open for further replies.
adam sr said:
then does this mean when I bought my son a hunting rifle when he was 12 it was illegal.
Click to expand...

I don't think so since a 12 year old can't fill out the necessary paperwork. Technically the gun would probably belong to you anyway until he came of age.

The vague part about this is that it isn't illegal to sell or give a gun to someone. It is illegal to sell one to a person who you know is prohibited. There is no time specified, so if you bought a gun and then a week later sold it to your buddy that is NOT illegal. They have to prove you bought the gun with the intent of giving or selling it to someone else. And if that someone else isn't a prohibited person it's a moot point anyway.
 
adam sr said:
then does this mean when I bought my son a hunting rifle when he was 12 it was illegal.
Click to expand...
No, the issue is the wording made it a trick question that required a great deal of thought.

To buy a firearm FOR another person is illegal. FOR another person, as in, that other person gave you money, all or some, provided a service, or some other item that has a value in exchange for that purchase whether that person is restricted or not.

To buy a firearm for another person as a GIFT is not illegal so long as that person isn't barred by law from having a firearm.
 
Bassbob said:
They have to prove you bought the gun with the intent of giving or selling it to someone else.
Click to expand...
This is a dangerous road to drive down. Remember, the feds have unlimited access to your money to fight you in court trying to prove you did intend to sell it. Even if you win, you still lose. They can not prove you intended to resell a firearm anymore than you can prove you did not.
 
Tactical-Reviews said:
This is a dangerous road to drive down. Remember, the feds have unlimited access to your money to fight you in court trying to prove you did intend to sell it. Even if you win, you still lose. They can not prove you intended to resell a firearm anymore than you can prove you did not.
Click to expand...

Do you think the federal government would whip out the big guns to convict some schmuck of “ Straw purchase” for selling a gun to a person who is not prohibited from buying a firearm? No matter what they would have to allow you a jury trial. Do you think a jury would convict you of a crime for selling a gun to a person who is legally allowed to buy any gun they want? If that’s something that scares you I would suggest never selling a gun to anyone. Honestly that seems about as far fetched as people who won’t do a trigger job on a carry gun because they think it would hurt them if they were involved in a SD shooting.
 
[QUOTE="Tactical-Reviews, post: 15049, member: 3143"To buy a firearm for another person as a GIFT is not illegal so long as that person isn't barred by law from having a firearm.
[/QUOTE]


So now they would have to prove money or services were exchanged. I understand the wording on the test being that way to make sure you understand the law, but in practice it’s virtually unenforceable. Unless they have a witness that saw the exchange.
 
Bassbob said:
Do you think the federal government would whip out the big guns to convict some schmuck of “ Straw purchase” for selling a gun to a person who is not prohibited from buying a firearm? No matter what they would have to allow you a jury trial. Do you think a jury would convict you of a crime for selling a gun to a person who is legally allowed to buy any gun they want? If that’s something that scares you I would suggest never selling a gun to anyone. Honestly that seems about as far fetched as people who won’t do a trigger job on a carry gun because they think it would hurt them if they were involved in a SD shooting.
Click to expand...
If the Feds have a grudge against you for whatever that reason maybe possibly even political, which has happened to certain people or groups in the past then my answer is yes, I personally think the Feds will use every tool they have to lock you up if they can't do it another way. But for the general population it's probably not in the Feds best interest to bring someone to trial for selling/gifting to a person who is legally allowed to posses a firearm.

Just my thoughts on the subject.
 
"...Do you think the federal government would whip out the big guns to convict some schmuck of “ Straw purchase” for selling a gun to a person who is not prohibited from buying a firearm? No matter what they would have to allow you a jury trial. Do you think a jury would convict you of a crime for selling a gun to a person who is legally allowed to buy any gun they want?..."

After the fiascos that Judge Kavanaugh, the President, and others (as an example) have gone through, and still being subjected to, I don't doubt anything these days.
 
ScottJ said:
"...Do you think the federal government would whip out the big guns to convict some schmuck of “ Straw purchase” for selling a gun to a person who is not prohibited from buying a firearm? No matter what they would have to allow you a jury trial. Do you think a jury would convict you of a crime for selling a gun to a person who is legally allowed to buy any gun they want?..."

After the fiascos that Judge Kavanaugh, the President, and others (as an example) have gone through, and still being subjected to, I don't doubt anything these days.
Click to expand...
Perfect examples of my statement above!
 
SMSgtRod said:
There is no excuse for not understanding a law..... even if it is written purposely vague!

Even if it says, "Shall not be infringed" it still isn't good enough! Some think that is vague!
Click to expand...

The ones that think it's vague either ignore the meaning, or are ignorant of the original intent of the 2A because it interferes with their agenda.

Until they rip up the Constitution "shall not be infringed" is crystal clear to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top