One flaw in their whole scheme that should be blindingly obvious is that no TRUE straw purchaser with criminal intent is going to "act like" he's making a straw purchase. In real life situations, most of those who are denied under this aspect of the law are just people who are ignorant of the regulations & let slip "I'm buying this shotgun for my husband's birthday", or some such statement. Real straw purchasers pretend they ARE the true buyers (and thereby commit a criminal act when they swear otherwise on the federal form...as did Nooner). I see nothing in this article indicating that stores actually sold guns to persons who failed the background check or claimed one of the conditions on the form that would have made them inelligible to buy. Having a few small shops that can't fight a well-financed lawsuit promise to "upgrade their procedures", like most anti-gun measures, won't have any effect on the true criminals. A concientious seller SHOULD, of course, be on the lookout for straw purchasers. Some, I know, feel out suspect buyers in a seemingly casual converstion about how they plan on using the firearm, but even that is only likely to catch the present-buying housewife, not the "dealer" planning to flip the gun to a criminal pipeline.
Aside from all that, isn't one of the mantras of the gibbering antis that crime flows from the easy availabilty of firearms? If that were the case, wouldn't we expect the criminals to be giving up their evil gun-toting ways or moving from New York, rather than the guns going up to them?
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation