I don't understand why it's bad. If you lie and get caught, or get refused, why wouldn't we take action? If its an innocent/wrong denial, I assume that will work through and no problem.
His main issue seems to be feds telling states about bad guys, then expecting the states to do the dirty work? Is that the main issue here? Abdication of responsibility?
In several cases, courts have ruled that the federal government cannot pass a law or regulation on the federal level and force states and municipalities to cover the costs of enforcement of said laws and regulations.
I really don't see much of an issue with prosecuting attempted criminal activity here, so long as the federal government funds the local prosecutorial efforts.
And that includes straw purchases for convicted felons.
I started watching that, but is a goddam grown ass man with bobble heads and toy guns in his room. There's no way he gets pussy. If his issue is with the feds telling the states to get bad guys, isn't a sanctuary city a place where we have a problem with the states being unwilling to tell the feds about illegal activity? It gets confusing how we want LE cooperation to work.
A major problem is the law says you cannot be prosecuted for lying on the form if you are a prohibited buyer because you would be forced to testify against yourself to fill it out correctly. So the target is not liars and cheats of consequence and it will devolve to chasing those with minor transgressions. Refusals are NOT the domain of straw purchases and everything about straw purchasing is discovered is already being pursued.
The example would be the cop getting a deal on a Glock for his uncle. Both were legally eligible to buy guns, but one got a better deal...
In your example, it is not illegal for the cop to sell his legally purchased firearm to his uncle, who can also legally purchase a firearm. The cop cannot be charged with a federal crime, because he has not committed one, assuming his uncle resides in the same state.
'Even if he sells it to his uncle the next day. There is no minimum amount of time required by law to own a firearm before one can legally sell it to another unrestricted purchaser.
Technically and legally speaking, a straw purchaser buys a firearm and sells it to someone who cannot legally purchase one. Whether they sell it to the prohibited purchaser the next day or ten years later, they are a straw purchaser.
A major problem is the law says you cannot be prosecuted for lying on the form if you are a prohibited buyer because you would be forced to testify against yourself to fill it out correctly. So the target is not liars and cheats of consequence and it will devolve to chasing those with minor transgressions. Refusals are NOT the domain of straw purchases and everything about straw purchasing is discovered is already being pursued.
The example would be the cop getting a deal on a Glock for his uncle. Both were legally eligible to buy guns, but one got a better deal...
Really 🥴 I thought somewhere on that form 4473 if there was a spot it said it was a felony if you were lying on it. But proving it could be harder than just knowing but
I didn't make the rules, I just report what happened. If a wife buys a gun for her husband, how does she answer the question "is this gun for you"? My FFL did the transfer from the cop to the uncle in Easton, PA.