|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.90.36.216
In Reply to: RE: A travesty of justice posted by rivervalley817 on November 20, 2021 at 11:33:43
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Follow Ups:
I did misinterpret the statute but haven't had the opportunity to retract the statements yet, so thanks for this, I would have come around to it eventually
now I'm stuck on the strawman buy of the weapon
the whole situation is starting to smell ... pretty bad
with regards,
I wonder if it would have made a difference if it were his father buying the gun for him? Would that have still been a "strawman" buy?
17 is too young to own the gun but not too young to be in possession of the gun. I believe that is what WI law says. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with it but to understand what happened in the trial we have to understand WI laws.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
agreed ... but I managed to misinterpret WI gun law on open carry. my police officer stepson stepped in and pointed this out an hour or two before you posted. he also said in so many words, that if someone makes a mistake on the letter of the law it's best to err conservatively ...anyway, the strawman rules for gun purchases are at the Fed level requiring State compliance ... and from this gun owners association site:
[quotes on]
"if a father were to buy his son a firearm and didn't plan on being the owner and primary user of the weapon himself, it would qualify as a straw purchase.
The name comes from "strawman" - in this sense, the purchaser is buying the weapon for a strawman user who isn't currently in the store or signing the forms with them.
straw purchases are illegal because the background checks. Other legal loopholes that a gun purchaser needs to jump through don't apply to someone not in the store buying the weapon themselves.
If you were to buy a firearm for someone else, you're basically trying to let them skip the legal process and get a weapon without having to pass several checks.
It's pretty cut and dry. You're violating the law if you purchase a gun with the intent of bringing it to someone else. Of course, there's no law against you letting someone handle your weapon at the firing range or in other protected or necessary circumstances." [quotes off]
I personally don't believe that weapon wasn't in Illinois and transported across the state line based on the testimony of the individuals breaking the strawman purchase law in the first place ... it doesn't pass the sniff test ... yet the court accepted it along with a lot of other nonsense
'but to understand what happened in the trial'
I think what happened was pretty clear ... that was a show trial with an 'activist' judge presiding and putting more than his thumb on the scales of justice; as others have stated, a travesty of justice
the inevitable civil suits should be quite revealing
anyway, having invested more time than I cared to yesterday dragging the issue I'm bowing out and 'going dark' on it ... those who approve of the results aren't going to care what any critics have to say and as I saw yesterday, assign political motivations to them
I do hold a perspective on such matters but put those aside as much as possible analyzing them, since to me the court process is sacrosanct as part of freedom and human rights no matter the source of government authority ... including country / nation
with regards,
Edits: 11/22/21
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: