Straw Purchase!

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

geronimo509

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
653
Location
DFW
Well, I am a little disappointed in my hometown and the federal gov't right now. I believed that the strict laws on straw purchasing scared a lot of people from doing it. Once a criminal, who hasn't been caught yet, reads this story, he probably will not hesitate when asked to do a straw purchase. This is RIDICULOUS

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/police/all-5guns.6854139apr12,0,5492434.story

Just needed to vent because 20 months in jail, 2 years probation, and a 100 $ fine is a joke.
 
here's the article in the link:

Bethlehem Man Gets Prison For Lie About Gun Purchases
April 12, 2009

A Bethlehem man was sentenced Thursday to 20 months in federal prison for making false statements about a firearms purchase, according to the U.S. attorney's office in Scranton.

Adigun Nicholson, 46, pleaded guilty on Oct. 27, 2008, to falsely representing on federal firearms forms that he was the actual purchaser of more than eight firearms from Smitty's Sports Shop in Blakeslee.

Nicholson admitted that he purchased the firearms for a New York man from March 2006 to February 2007.

Nicholson was also ordered by U.S. Judge A. Richard Caputo to serve two years of supervised release after serving his prison sentence, and to pay a special assessment of $100.
Click to expand...

geronimo509 said:
Just needed to vent because 20 months in jail, 2 years probation, and a 100 $ fine is a joke.
Click to expand...

That would keep ME from doing it.
 
Yeah, I'm kind of with Karen on this one. Almost 2 years in prison and another 2 on supervised probation for buying an object for someone else seems like a genuine deterrent to me.

Maybe you'd have been happier with a public flogging or should we just take him out and summarily execute him for lying on a federal form. I wonder where we'd bury all of the tax payers who fudge their paperwork.
 
I'm just guessing but I'll bet some type of deal was made with the prosecutor. He probably got caught doing more straw purchases and they offered him a plea deal on a single count rather than prosecute on "x" number of counts.
 
this was my main point i guess,
Once a criminal, who hasn't been caught yet, reads this story, he probably will not hesitate when asked to do a straw purchase.
Click to expand...

I understand it is a good deterrent to most Law abiding people, but to a criminal I don't think it is.

I thought there was a harsher penalty for illegally buying a gun for someone else. I guess I was wrong. That is one of the few gun laws that I really like, it is there to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them!
 
Laws, like locks, tend to keep honest people honest.

I have not committed murder, armed robbery, tax evasion, burglary, etc. It has nothing to do with the legality of these acts, but rather how my parents raised me. My mom (now 70) would kick my butt if I ever did anything so stupid. My wife and kids would be sorely disappointed and embarrassed. The two years, loss of gun rights, and probation are just the tip of the iceberg on the "costs" to me for breaking the law.

OTOH, this is chump change to someone who has no self respect, and feels they have nothing to lose. I guess that's why they chose a life on the low road. Laws will not change that. Two years will only get his rectum re-arranged and solidify his bad choices.
 
I was a bit suprised... :what:

Usually they don't bother to prosecute straw buyers at all. :fire:

The light sentence may reflect circumstances that weren't mentioned in the story.
 
I suspect, the way the story is written, pleading guilty is a sign of some deal making; and You almost always get a lighter sentence when you plead out.

Although a $100.00 fine is a little lame. Why not a $1000.00?
 
I thought there was a harsher penalty for illegally buying a gun for someone else. I guess I was wrong. That is one of the few gun laws that I really like, it is there to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them!
Click to expand...

Well now, that is the rub. Some of us don't feel there should be restrictions on owning guns at all.

The reason you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun should be because you are dangerous and you are in jail.
 
I'm actually kind of surprised at the OP's reaction and that of several posters here.

I'm not even sure how they make a case against someone for this - unless they can prove the buyer knew the subsequent purchaser was restricted from possessing a firearm.

There is nothing illegal (as far as I know) in purchasing a firearm - and then re-selling it to someone else face-to-face without the requirement of a background check in a personal transaction.

What am I missing?

We would all be safer if violent felons didn't have any way of obtaining firearms - but I thought that genie was already out of the bottle.

And I agree with wyocarp on this one:

The reason you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun should be because you are dangerous and you are in jail.
Click to expand...

If a convicted felon is safe enough to share my free air - how is a law restricting his right to possess a firearm going make me safer? He'll get one regardless of the law.

IMHO...Violent criminals should go to prison and stay there. Non-violent felons who have served their time and been released from prison should have the same rights as the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
The reason you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun should be because you are dangerous and you are in jail.
Click to expand...

And when and how are we going to change our whole legal system to allow indeterminate sentencing? Toss out all of the guidelines of what is a reasonable sentence for a given crime and leave it up to "someone" to arbitrarily decide if you are "dangerous" or not. All sentences for anything considered "violent", even a fist fight at some bar, a road rage incident or some domestic charge could get you locked up for life. :rolleyes:
 
"I'm not even sure how they make a case against someone for this - unless they can prove the buyer knew the subsequent purchaser was restricted from possessing a firearm."

From the wording, I don't think he resold them.

"to falsely representing on federal firearms forms that he was the actual purchaser"

"Nicholson admitted that he purchased the firearms for a New York man "

Put those two statements together and it appears he bought the 8 guns with the other person's money.

Like it or not, that is unlawful until the law is changed.

John
 
there seems to be two different types of crimes people label as "straw purchase". the first as i understand it, is a prohibeted person asking a lawful second person to buy a gun for them. the second is a lawful person asking another lawful person to buy a gun for them.

although i don't have all the details, i glean from the news story that neither the purchaser nor the man in new york were prohibited from owning a firearm. however since the person recieving the gun was in new york, the buyer was also guilty of transfering a gun across state lines. and possibly dealing in firearms without a license.

i agree, the buyer, in a just world, should not have to fill out any federal form to exersize a civil liberty. unfortunatly, this isn't that world and we do, and he lied. and got busted.

I understand it is a good deterrent to most Law abiding people, but to a criminal I don't think it is.
Click to expand...

keep in mind, a law abiding person is needed to pass a backgroung check before a straw purchase can happen.
 
I suspect, the way the story is written, pleading guilty is a sign of some deal making; and You almost always get a lighter sentence when you plead out.
Click to expand...

Thats not true. It is a myth. The fact is that a criminal will likely get the same sentence whether they plea or go to trial.



I thought we wanted the current laws to be enforced instead of new ones being made. So why are people standing up for someone who broke the law? EVeryone always says to go after the criminals and not the guns, but when that is done you complain about the law.??? Straw purchase laws exist for a reason. If the second man could legally purchase his own firearms then there's no reason to have someone else do it for him 7-8 different times.

I actually think that the sentence needs to be about 3x longer than what he got. THAT might serve as a deterrent. I have no issue with the government locking this guy up especially if it will have an effect which will placate those who want further gun restrictions.
 
There is nothing illegal (as far as I know) in purchasing a firearm - and then re-selling it to someone else face-to-face without the requirement of a background check in a personal transaction.
Click to expand...

There isn't. Buying the gun with YOUR money from anyone then selling/giving it to someone who can legally possess (or the seller is under the impression that the buyer isn't prohibited from possessing firearms) the firearm is legal.

Straw purchases only happen when buying from FFL holders. If you're using someone elses money to purchase a gun for that person (who is prohibited from possessing firearms) is considered a straw purchase. When filling out the form 4473, a straw purchaser will answer "yes" on the "are you the actual purchaser of the firearm?" when the intended recipient is prohibited from possessing the firearm.
 
Thank you TRGRHPY!

As for jakk280rem, I think you took my quote out of context. the quote you have is a supplement to an earlier post of mine. The guy who purchased the guns was probably a criminal who hasn't been caught committing a crime. At least, I would bet on that. He is only "law abiding" because he never got caught, I would put money that most straw purchasers are criminals who happen to be lucky and don't have a record, yet.

I could be wrong, so you can agree or disagree with my opinion. Everyone has an opinion so there is no reason to argue, I'm just stating what "I" think to be true.
 
I think it is a harsh punishment for a law that is unconstitutional...... shall no be infringed anyone?
 
With time off for good behavior, he'll probably do about 8 months. I'd say he got off pretty light.

He lied, he got caught. He commited a crime. Why should he not do time?

He is only "law abiding" because he never got caught,
Click to expand...

Actually, he is breaking the law, just not getting caught. Are you law-abiding if you rob a bank and don't get caught? Hardly.
 
"I think it is a harsh punishment for a law that is unconstitutional"

It's not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is. That's the way our system of laws works.

JT
 
I understand it is a good deterrent to most Law abiding people, but to a criminal I don't think it is.
Click to expand...
This guy apparently was a law abiding citizen until he did the straw purchase. Otherwise, he would not have been able to purchase a gun from a FFL. I'm okay with the sentence. The guy essentially committed perjury, so he should go to jail, regardless of whether you like gun registration or not. On the other hand, 20 months is nothing to sneeze at and the guy apparently had not been in serious trouble before this (no felonies). Unlike many state systems, someone sentenced to federal time serves almost all of it -- there is no parole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Investigators say gun used in Truck Park bar shooting linked to straw purchase
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
LiberalVet
L
T
  • Locked
Wikileaks shows Mexico isn't getting guns from US
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Badger Arms
  • Locked
  • Poll
Philadelphia targets Straw Purchases (story)
Replies
16
Views
1K
zminer
Z
M
  • Locked
Milwaukee: straw purchaser sentenced
Replies
7
Views
629
Monkeyleg
M
D
  • Locked
Feds shoot down Bloomberg's gun suit (threads merged)
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Rumpled
R
Back
Top