The COVID19 SCAMdemic... WW3 Is 2 Days Away - Another Distraction From This Administration's Epic Fails

[Subliminal]

If the firearm was purchased for another person, not the transferee, then it’s a violation of federal law for lying on the 4473. It doesn’t matter if they intended on waiting for Rittenhouse reach 18yrs old or not. Intent is what matters.

Rittenhouse was not legally allowed to purchase the firearm at the time of purchase. Black knew this and was purchasing for Rittenhouse with Rittenhouse’s “gifted money.” The purchase of the firearm for another person who is not legally allowed to obtain the weapon is the straw purchase.

I ask again, do you understand the legal concepts and federal firearms laws you are attempting to argue?

And that's why Kyle wasn't "obtaining" the gun until he was legally able to. Keep trying to dance around it, you're still dead wrong.

 

[Subliminal]

Was he legally allowed to posses the weapon at 17?

Yes, there is an exemption to the law allowing 16 and 17 year olds to possess rifles and shotguns. That's why the charge was dropped.

 

[Corprin]

And that's why Kyle wasn't "obtaining" the gun until he was legally able to. Keep trying to dance around it, you're still dead wrong.

You are arguing around the subject. Both Rittenhouse and Black admitted under oath that the rifle was purchased by black because Rittenhouse was not yet allowed to do so himself. As such, the purchase was for Rittenhouse. The timeline of the purchase and eventual gifting is immaterial. The law is focused on intent, which was presented in sworn testimony.

 

[Subliminal]

You are arguing around the subject. Both Rittenhouse and Black admitted under oath that the rifle was purchased by black because Rittenhouse was not yet allowed to do so himself. As such, the purchase was for Rittenhouse. The timeline of the purchase and eventual gifting is immaterial. The law is focused on intent, which was presented in sworn testimony.

And again the intent was it wouldn't be Kyle's gun until he could legally own it. You're a fool.

 

[jimlloyd40]

Was he legally allowed to posses the weapon at 17?

I'm not arguing the case at all. I just asked who owned the gun at the time of the shootings. Really don't care about it.

 

[jimlloyd40]

Vaccinated NFL players getting Covid. Eleven players on just the Los Angeles Chargers team.

 

[Subliminal]

I'm not arguing the case at all. I just asked who owned the gun at the time of the shootings. Really don't care about it.

It was kept at the purchaser's house. It's essentially the same as a parent buying a gun for his 17 year old son with the intent of giving it to when he's legally able to own it, but in the meantime can use it when they go shooting

 

[anotero]

No, you’re just too stupid to comprehend things outside what you want to read. It’s okay, I don’t expect much from you.

Still delusional about me staying that Rittenhouse obtained the rifle through straw purchase?

How about I indulge your fantasy. Rittenhouse purchase was a straw purchase as he was not legally allowed to obtain the rifle. “Gifting” money with intent on “gifting” the rifle back is a cute method to try and circumvent federal and state laws in both WI and IL.

Now, what say you?

Isn't that how rich guy charities and name funds work?

 

[anotero]

If the firearm was purchased for another person, not the transferee, then it’s a violation of federal law for lying on the 4473. It doesn’t matter if they intended on waiting for Rittenhouse reach 18yrs old or not. Intent is what matters.

Rittenhouse was not legally allowed to purchase the firearm at the time of purchase. Black knew this and was purchasing for Rittenhouse with Rittenhouse’s “gifted money.” The purchase of the firearm for another person who is not legally allowed to obtain the weapon is the straw purchase.

I ask again, do you understand the legal concepts and federal firearms laws you are attempting to argue?

Woah, woah. Intent this, intent that. What is this, Minority Report?
If i give my father in a freer state money to buy a handgun that's off the Cali roster, and he then gifts it to me in accordance with Cali intrafamilial laws, is that a crime?

 

[Corprin]

And again the intent was it wouldn't be Kyle's gun until he could legally own it. You're a fool.

The admission in court was Rittenhouse received his unemployment check, said something to the affect that he’d use the money to buy an AR15. He then gave the money to Black to buy him the rifle, which Black would secure at his dad’s place, until Rittenhouse became legally allowed to own it.

The government need only prove the intent of the “gifting” was to allow the purchase of the firearm for a person not legally allowed to do so themselves.

I don’t know where you are getting your information from, but maybe you should sit down with 18 USC Section 44, and 27 CFR for a bit?

 

[Corprin]

Isn't that how rich guy charities and name funds work?

It is.

 

[Subliminal]

The admission in court was Rittenhouse received his unemployment check, said something to the affect that he’d use the money to buy an AR15. He then gave the money to Black to buy him the rifle, which Black would secure at his dad’s place, until Rittenhouse became legally allowed to own it.

The government need only prove the intent of the “gifting” was to allow the purchase of the firearm for a person not legally allowed to do so themselves.

I don’t know where you are getting your information from, but maybe you should sit down with 18 USC Section 44, and 27 CFR for a bit?

At this point it's hilarious you're still trying to argue it

 

[Corprin]

Woah, woah. Intent this, intent that. What is this, Minority Report?
If i give my father in a freer state money to buy a handgun that's off the Cali roster, and he then gifts it to me in accordance with Cali intrafamilial laws, is that a crime?

Yes, as it is not a bona fide gift.

You gave your father, who can legally obtain the hand gun, money to buy it for you, who cannot legally obtain the hand gun. You are using your father as an agent for the purchase.

Let’s go one level deeper. If you give your father, who lives out of state, money to buy a single shot shotgun (you can still have hose in CA, right?) for you because it’s cheaper where he is. He then sends the shotgun to you FFL to FFL, it is illegal.

Both of these scenarios have been upheld in numerous court cases up to and including the SCOUS.

 

[anotero]

It is.

There you go. It's all good.

 

[anotero]

Yes, as it is not a bona fide gift.

You gave your father, who can legally obtain the hand gun, money to buy it for you, who cannot legally obtain the hand gun. You are using your father as an agent for the purchase.

Let’s go one level deeper. If you give your father, who lives out of state, money to buy a single shot shotgun (you can still have hose in CA, right?) for you because it’s cheaper where he is. He then sends the shotgun to you FFL to FFL, it is illegal.

Both of these scenarios have been upheld in numerous court cases up to and including the SCOUS.

Lol. Mkay.