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

[jimlloyd40]

Correct, which is why Dominick Black owned it until Kyle turned 18. The night of the incident Kyle got the gun from Dominick's house in Kenosha Wisconsin

But I thought Kyle was 17 at the time of the shootings.

 

[Subliminal]

But I thought Kyle was 17 at the time of the shootings.

Also correct, but again he fit an exemption to the law which legally allowed him to possess/carry the rifle that night. But he did not own the firearm, it was kept at Dominick Black's house which is where he obtained it from that night (Dominick is his friend who went with him to the riots)

 

[anotero]

I (acting as the government in our discussion) don’t need to prove it. In your scenario, you proved it for me.

As you are a CA resident, you can only buy a firearm out of state under the CA regulatory/statutory standards, then the gun is transferred through a CA FFL. If the handgun is something you cannot buy yourself in CA, you can’t buy it outside of CA either.

You gave the money to your dad to buy you a handgun in another state you’d otherwise not be able to by yourself in CA. He then “gifts” it to you under the familial transfer provisions of CA law. This still constitutes an illegal act.

In the Rittenhouse/Black case, they proved the intent themselves, under oath.

You keep repeating "this is an illegal act," not mych more. Someone else buying it is not me buying it, so your argument about me not being able to buy it out of state is a moot point -- I'm not buying it. How and for what i give money to my father and how and for what he's using it is the greyest area possible. Good luck proving anything in this scenario.

PS
You are not the government, therefore i don't need to prove anything to you.

 

[jimlloyd40]

Also correct, but again he fit an exemption to the law which legally allowed him to possess/carry the rifle that night. But he did not own the firearm, it was kept at Dominick Black's house which is where he obtained it from that night (Dominick is his friend who went with him to the riots)

What was the exemption? Sorry I'm not up to speed on this. I know you guys have certainly discussed it.

 

[anotero]

Unsurprising news about misinformation, Trump supporters, and death rates.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...isinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

You are late to the party: truthgivers have already posted this in this thread.

 

[Subliminal]

What was the exemption? Sorry I'm not up to speed on this. I know you guys have certainly discussed it.

The exemption is that 16 & 17 year olds can possess a gun with a barrel over a certain length (basically a rifle or shotgun). It's likely there for hunting w/ family purposes - but not stated so in the law. Regardless, the judge dropped the charge because Kyle fit the exemption.

 

[Corprin]

Who is "us" exactly? You're literally the only one arguing this

You are absolutely right, I made a comment about not digging into the neuance of straw purchases, and you took that as some form of debate. You attempted to goad me into the argument. For shits and giggles I indulged you on the subject tonight and you have yet to actually defend to your position. It’s almost like you threw some uneducated shit at the wall, nothing stuck, and now your just clapping off with tired and unsubstantiated talking points.

But I thought Kyle was 17 at the time of the shootings.

We are not discussing the shootings, maybe that’s where some people’s wires are getting crossed? We are discussing the nature of the rifle’s purchase.

You keep repeating "this is an illegal act," not mych more. Someone else buying it is not me buying it, so your argument about me not being able to buy it out of state is a moot point -- I'm not buying it. How and for what i give money to my father and how and for what he's using it is the greyest area possible. Good luck proving anything in this scenario.

PS
You are not the government, therefore i don't need to prove anything to you.

By you giving your father money to buy the handgun out of state that you, as a CA resident cannot purchase yourself in your home state, constitutes a straw purchase. Even if you are allowed to purchase the firearm yourself it still constitutes an illegal purchase. If your father “gifts” the handgun to you, your father has violated federal law by purchasing the firearm as your “agent” with the understanding that you are the actual buyer. This intent is what constitutes the false statement on the 4473, and thereby the straw purchase.

See: Abramski v. United States

 

[jimlloyd40]

The exemption is that 16 & 17 year olds can possess a gun with a barrel over a certain length (basically a rifle or shotgun). It's likely there for hunting w/ family purposes - but not stated so in the law. Regardless, the judge dropped the charge because Kyle fit the exemption.

Thanks I'm up to speed now.

 

[Subliminal]

You are absolutely right, I made a comment about not digging into the neuance of straw purchases, and you took that as some form of debate. You attempted to goad me into the argument. For shits and giggles I indulged you on the subject tonight and you have yet to actually defend to your position. It’s almost like you threw some uneducated shit at the wall, nothing stuck, and now your just clapping off with tired and unsubstantiated talking points.




We are not discussing the shootings, maybe that’s where some people’s wires are getting crossed? We are discussing the nature of the rifle’s purchase.




By you giving your father money to buy the handgun out of state that you, as a CA resident cannot purchase yourself in your home state, constitutes a straw purchase. Even if you are allowed to purchase the firearm yourself it still constitutes an illegal purchase. If your father “gifts” the handgun to you, your father has violated federal law by purchasing the firearm as your “agent” with the understanding that you are the actual buyer. See: Abramski v. United States

Another cute desperate attempt to troll

 

[anotero]

You are absolutely right, I made a comment about not digging into the neuance of straw purchases, and you took that as some form of debate. You attempted to goad me into the argument. For shits and giggles I indulged you on the subject tonight and you have yet to actually defend to your position. It’s almost like you threw some uneducated shit at the wall, nothing stuck, and now your just clapping off with tired and unsubstantiated talking points.




We are not discussing the shootings, maybe that’s where some people’s wires are getting crossed? We are discussing the nature of the rifle’s purchase.




By you giving your father money to buy the handgun out of state that you, as a CA resident cannot purchase yourself in your home state, constitutes a straw purchase. Even if you are allowed to purchase the firearm yourself it still constitutes an illegal purchase. If your father “gifts” the handgun to you, your father has violated federal law by purchasing the firearm as your “agent” with the understanding that you are the actual buyer. This intent is what constitutes the false statement on the 4473, and thereby the straw purchase.

See: Abramski v. United States

A transfer of money between family members that has not been recorded/notarized is proven how? Proving intent requires more than "i think so..."

 

[anotero]

You are absolutely right, I made a comment about not digging into the neuance of straw purchases, and you took that as some form of debate. You attempted to goad me into the argument. For shits and giggles I indulged you on the subject tonight and you have yet to actually defend to your position. It’s almost like you threw some uneducated shit at the wall, nothing stuck, and now your just clapping off with tired and unsubstantiated talking points.




We are not discussing the shootings, maybe that’s where some people’s wires are getting crossed? We are discussing the nature of the rifle’s purchase.




By you giving your father money to buy the handgun out of state that you, as a CA resident cannot purchase yourself in your home state, constitutes a straw purchase. Even if you are allowed to purchase the firearm yourself it still constitutes an illegal purchase. If your father “gifts” the handgun to you, your father has violated federal law by purchasing the firearm as your “agent” with the understanding that you are the actual buyer. This intent is what constitutes the false statement on the 4473, and thereby the straw purchase.

See: Abramski v. United States

Read 4473, oage one, 21a.

 

[Escape Hatch]

He was acquitted of the charges related to him killing two and wounding the third. The possession under 18 was removed as he didn’t meet the provisions therein. The charges of curfew violation were dismissed by the judge because they were not pertinent to the case of self defense.

Black is still facing the original charges related to him providing the rifle to Rittenhouse. His admission of the straw purchase on the witness stand could lead to federal weapons charges.

This is discussing the criminal liability, and not addressing the civil liability of both cases.

It’s humorous that you insist on degrading other people’s “internet wisdom” but fail to see the gross limitations of your own.

Ahh, it is always refreshing when you get the goat of Corp.

 

[Escape Hatch]

I (acting as the government in our discussion) don’t need to prove it. In your scenario, you proved it for me.

As you are a CA resident, you can only buy a firearm out of state under the CA regulatory/statutory standards, then the gun is transferred through a CA FFL. If the handgun is something you cannot buy yourself in CA, you can’t buy it outside of CA either.

You gave the money to your dad to buy you a handgun in another state you’d otherwise not be able to by yourself in CA. He then “gifts” it to you under the familial transfer provisions of CA law. This still constitutes an illegal act.

In the Rittenhouse/Black case, they proved the intent themselves, under oath.

Is that it? The transfer of funds at a particular junction in ownership? I agree, if someone gives you money to buy them a weapon they cannot legally obtain it is illegal. Question is, If you purchase the weapon and someone provides you funds after the fact and they CAN legally own a weapon, what then? That transaction is then legal.

Common sense I know but let's take it a step further. If you purchase a weapon and then are to sell to someone who CANNOT legally own the firearm what then? In a private transfer you are not required to submit any forms as you the parties are not an FFL.

When a transaction takes place between unlicensed persons who reside in the same state, the Federal Gun Control Act does not require any record keeping. An unlicensed person may sell a firearm to another unlicensed person in his or her state of residence. It is not necessary under Federal law for an FFL to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same state” residents.

 

[anotero]

Is that it? The transfer of funds at a particular junction in ownership? I agree, if someone gives you money to buy them a weapon they cannot legally obtain it is illegal. Question is, If you purchase the weapon and someone provides you funds after the fact and they CAN legally own a weapon, what then? That transaction is then legal.

Common sense I know but let's take it a step further. If you purchase a weapon and then are to sell to someone who CANNOT legally own the firearm what then? In a private transfer you are not required to submit any forms as you the parties are not an FFL.

When a transaction takes place between unlicensed persons who reside in the same state, the Federal Gun Control Act does not require any record keeping. An unlicensed person may sell a firearm to another unlicensed person in his or her state of residence. It is not necessary under Federal law for an FFL to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same state” residents.

Moreover, the very fact that there's a law that allows intrafamilial transfers (and by transfers i mean an actual transfer, not just handing something over) means that a cali roster handgun is legal to obtain.

When i moved to Cali from the east coast, i brought with me a handgun that was not on the roster. I still have it, in Cali, LEGALLY (i even chose to register it in Cali, even though i was not required to). Because laws. So just because someone FEELS like something is illegal doesn't make it so.

 

[zrickety]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1467895733328220161