Mombu the Politics Forum sponsored links

Go Back   Mombu the Politics Forum > Politics > Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell
User Name
Password
REGISTER NOW! Mark Forums Read

sponsored links


Reply
 
1 14th March 03:17
god001
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell
S B Sorenson and K A Vittes
UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California


Correspondence to:
Professor Susan B Sorenson, UCLA School of Public Health, 650 C E
Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1772, USA;
sorenson@ucla.edu


Objective: To examine firearm dealer willingness to sell when a
handgun is being purchased for another person. US law requires a
background check of the purchaser but not the end user of a firearm.

Subjects and methods: A total of 120 handgun dealers (six from each of
the 20 largest US cities with 10 or more dealers) participated in
telephone interviews. Dealers within each city were randomly assigned
to a male or female interviewer and then randomly assigned to one of
three purchase conditions—when the consumer said that the handgun was
for him/herself, a gift for a girl/boyfriend, or for a girl/boyfriend
"because s/he needs it".

Results: Most dealers were willing to sell a handgun regardless of the
end user (self: 87.5%; gift: 70.8%; "need": 52.5%). Multivariate
****yses indicate that dealers in the Midwest, South, and West were
more willing to sell than those in the Northeast (adjusted odds ratio
(AOR) = 21.30, 18.74, and 8.93, respectively) and that willingness to
sell is lower when the sale would be illegal, that is, under the
"need" condition (AOR = 0.20).

Conclusions and implications: Dealers are in a position to exercise
judgment when a customer is ******** about buying a firearm for
someone else. Some appeared willing to ignore or sidestep relevant
information even when told that the end user was prohibited from
purchasing a firearm him/herself. In the absence of federal handgun
registration, which would track ownership changes, resources with
which to conduct compliance checks (for example, as are conducted to
identify retailers who sell tobacco or alcohol to under-age persons)
seem warranted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keywords: firearms; assault; homicide; violence

In the US, efforts to reduce firearm related morbidity and mortality
include keeping guns out of the hands of certain people (for example,
felons, those adjudicated mentally ill). Regulating the actions of all
people who purchase guns in the US (over four million domestically
produced guns were sold in the US in 19991) is extremely difficult.
Regulating firearm dealers is one such effort to assert control over
who is able to obtain a firearm. A federal firearms license (FFL) is
required of anyone who is "regularly involved in the business of
selling firearms at wholesale or retail"2; there were 104 840 FFLs in
the US in 2001.1 FFLs, which are subject to federal oversight, are the
point of purchase of most (60%–70%) guns each year.3

One focus of recent firearm policy debate is whether and how to
require firearm manufacturers to take responsibility for the
distribution of their products. More than 30 US cities and counties
have filed lawsuits, many on this basis, against firearm manufacturers
trying to hold them accountable for firearm violence. As noted in some
of the legal cases, it is believed that many gun dealers
facilitate—sometimes willingly and sometimes passively—the movement of
guns from the legal to the illegal market.4 The primary observation is
that, despite laws and regulations, individual dealers are able to
exercise a fair amount of judgment in their sales of firearms. To our
knowledge, published peer reviewed literature on firearm dealer sales
behavior is virtually non-existent.

In the present study, we focus on firearm dealers and their
willingness to sell a handgun in a situation like a "straw purchase".
A straw purchase is defined as when a person who is authorized to
purchase a firearm buys one for someone who is not so authorized5 (for
example, a felon6) or when the purchaser conceals "the identity of the
true intended receiver of the firearm(s)" (Department of the Treasury,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; glossary7). Under federal
law, a person may not knowingly purchase a firearm for a person who is
prohibited from doing so him/herself, and dealers are prohibited from
selling or delivering "any firearm to any person in any state where
the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in
violation of any state law or any published ordinance ...".8

We focus on handguns rather than shotguns or rifles because handguns
are used disproportionately in crime and suicide.7,9,10 We also
examine the role of purchaser gender. Women are not common purchasers
of firearms; only 8% of women (compared with 35% of men) have ever
purchased a handgun.11 A widely held belief among law enforcement is
that when a woman buys a handgun, she is buying it on behalf of her
boyfriend or husband; available data support this assumption.12 And,
friends and family are the primary persons who are asked to and who do
purchase guns for firearm traffickers, incarcerated offenders, and
high school students.13–15 In addition, recent research suggests that
female gender is the single largest correlate of multiple purchase
handguns, guns that may be more likely than others to be used in
crime.16 We, therefore, examine whether the intended user affects
firearm dealer willingness to sell.

Six handgun dealers from each of the 20 largest cities in the US that
had 10 or more dealers participated in the research. (A power ****ysis
was conducted before data collection to determine the number needed to
detect meaningful differences.) A list of US cities, ranked by size,
was used to identify potential cities.17 We identified dealers listed
in an internet business directory under the keywords of "guns", "gun
dealers", and "firearms".

Cities with fewer than 10 dealers listed were eliminated and replaced
with the next largest city. Six firearm dealers were randomly selected
from the listings for each city. Additional dealers were randomly
selected when necessary (for example, when a dealer did not sell
handguns). Dealers were grouped by region of the country into
Northeast (Baltimore, New York City, Philadelphia), South (Memphis,
Nashville, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio,
El Paso, Austin, Fort Worth), Midwest (Cleveland, Indianapolis), and
West (Denver, Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego). Population
sizes ranged from over eight million (New York City) to about one half
million (Oklahoma City).

Dealers within each city were randomly assigned to one of two
interviewers, one male and one female. Interviewers called the sampled
firearm dealers posing as potential handgun purchasers. Interviewers
followed a predetermined script that began with "Hi, do you sell
handguns?" If not, the dealer was thanked and the call was terminated.
If the dealer said yes, the interview continued with one of three a
priori randomly assigned conditions, specifically: (1) "I'm looking to
buy a handgun for myself," (2) "I'm looking to buy a handgun for my
girl/boyfriend for her/his birthday," or (3) the intentionally
ambiguous situation of "My girl/boyfriend needs me to buy her/him a
handgun". The interviewer continued with "I've never done this before.
What do I need to know?" The script and answers to anticipated
questions (for example, "How much do you want to spend?") were pilot
tested with 10 gun dealers across the US who were not from the sampled
cities. Each pilot call was observed by the other interviewer and an
attempt was made to standardize tone, style, and other speech
patterns.

The callers took notes during all interviews and completed a brief
questionnaire immediately after each call. Participation rate was
100%. Clerks who answered the phone were not made aware that they were
participating in a study.

Attempts to persuade can reasonably be expected to be used by
potential purchasers, therefore, when a clerk was unwilling to sell a
handgun to the caller, the interviewers were instructed to gently
attempt to persuade him or her (for example, "Is there any way I can
do this—is there any way we can work it out?"). Five of the 28
conversion attempts were successful; we classified the converted cases
(n = 5) as willing to sell. Ten clerks gave a response that could not
be classified as a clear yes or no which was recorded as a "might" or
"maybe". Given that an equivocal response is not a likely outcome in
an in-person transaction, we adopted a conservative approach and
required an affirmative response for inclusion in the "willing to
sell" category; when a dealer indicated that s/he "might" sell, it was
coded as a "no".

Frequencies and Fisher's exact tests were calculated to examine
differences related to the manipulated variables, that is, interviewer
gender and sales condition. Multivariate logistic regressions that
took into consideration study variables (that is, interviewer gender
and sales condition) and geographic region were used to predict dealer
willingness to sell. Likelihood ratio tests were used to determine
whether adding geographic region to the regression significantly
improved the fit of the model. We also conducted descriptive and
multivariate logistic regression ****yses examining the role of the
legality of the sale.

Under federal law, licensed firearm dealers may legally sell a firearm
to any person who is not a prohibited purchaser (for example, a
convicted felon) including guns that will be given as a gift.7,18 In
most cases, however, a licensed dealer may not knowingly sell a
firearm to someone who the dealer knows is not the intended possessor,
independent of the intended possessor's eligibility.19 To determine
whether it is legal under state laws for a dealer to sell a handgun
when purchased as a gift, we contacted nine law enforcement agencies
in seven different states. Responses ranged from the openly unsure
(for example, "That's a tricky question right there") to the tentative
(for example, "I'm pretty sure it's legal") to the accusatory ("I've
been on the job 12 years and never had a person ask the law if they
weren't going to do something illegal"), to the incorrect (for
example, "Federal law says no for handguns"). Given this inconsistent
information, we sought the assistance of two attorneys, a former
Assistant United States Attorney and an attorney specializing in
firearm policy. They reviewed relevant federal and state statutes18,20
and judged whether it was legal for the dealer to sell a handgun under
each condition in the specific state. The independent evaluators
differed only on whether the gift condition was illegal in Indiana.
Data were ****yzed with Indiana classified each way; substantive
findings were the same. To facilitate presentation of the findings,
results are presented with Indiana classified as allowing gift sales.

The research was reviewed and approved by UCLA's Internal Review
Board.

Willingness to sell
Most (70.8%) dealers indicated that they were willing to sell a
handgun to the caller regardless of the stated end user of the gun.
Willingness to sell differed by sales condition (p = 0.003). As shown
in table 1, dealers were willing to sell a handgun 87.5% of the time
when the caller stated that the handgun was for him/herself. (Dealer
refusal to sell under this condition occurred when the interviewers,
when asked, revealed that they did not meet residency or license
requirements for the purchase.) When the caller stated that the
handgun would be a gift, 72.5% of the dealers indicated they would
sell the gun. One half (52.5%) indicated they would sell a handgun to
the caller when told it was for a girl/boyfriend "who needs it".


Dealers were equally willing to sell a handgun to male and female
callers (70.0% v 71.7%). (When "maybe" was included as a category,
male callers were more likely to be given an outright "no" (28.3% v
13.3%), whereas females were more likely to be told that she "might"
be able to get the gun (15.0% v 1.7%).) Although the proportion of
dealers who were willing to sell a handgun when it was for the
girl/boyfriend was identical (62.5%) for the interviewers, the
proportion differed according to the rationale provided: a higher
proportion were willing to sell to the male than the female
interviewer when the gun would be a gift (80.0% v 65.0%) but a lower
proportion were willing to sell to him than her when it was for a
girl/boyfriend who needs it (45.0% v 60.0%).
A finding that emerged from the data, not postulated a priori, is that
of geographic region. Dealers in the Northeast were substantially less
likely to agree to sell than dealers in other regions of the country
(27.8% v 78.4%; p = 0.001), and those in the South were more likely
than those elsewhere to agree to sell a handgun (81.7% v 60.0%; p =
0.015).

Handgun dealers and the law
Selling a handgun would be illegal under the "need" condition (n =
40), yet one half (52.5%) of the dealers were willing to do so. If the
sale was legal, 80.0% were willing to do so. The legality of the sale
was related to dealer willingness to sell (p = 0.003). Some dealers
appeared to be aware of, but willing to work around, limitations
placed by the law, as evidenced by the following exchanges:
Interviewer: "Is there a problem with me buying it for my girlfriend?"
Dealer: "As long as we don't know about it. It's personal business".
Or, "First thing, don't ever tell anyone you're buying a gun for
someone else because it's against the law". In several cases, dealers
suggested that the caller contact another specific dealer, indicating
that they may be aware of someone who might be willing to sell under
these cir***stances.

Multivariate ****yses
Multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess the independent
effect of the type of sale, caller gender, and geographic region. The
first regression tests the role of interviewer gender and type of sale
(see table 2, model I). Dealers were less likely (adjusted odds ratio
(AOR) = 0.38) to say that they would sell a handgun intended to be a
gift than for personal use. Although this finding is substantively
important, it is not of statistical significance (p = 0.11). Dealers
were less willing (AOR = 0.16; p = 0.001) to sell a handgun if the
caller indicated it was a purchase intended for a girl/boyfriend
because s/he "needs it".

Adding geographic region to the regression (see model II) improved the
fit of the model substantially (p = 0.001) and the added variables
were statistically significant. Dealers in the Midwest, South, and
West were more willing than those in the Northeast to sell regardless
of the recipient of the handgun or the gender of the caller (AOR =
21.30, p = 0.003; AOR = 18.74, p = 0.000; AOR = 8.93, p = 0.004,
respectively). "Need" remained significant (AOR = 0.09, p = 0.001).

All "need" sales were illegal; the others were legal. Replacing sale
type with
sale legality in models I and II resulted in an AOR of 0.28 (95%
confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.63) for illegal sales; the AOR for
interviewer gender remained the same. When region was added to the
regression, the AOR for interviewer gender and each region did not
change substantially. Illegal sales remained statistically significant
(AOR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.53).

Firearm dealers who sell handguns are generally willing to sell to a
potential customer regardless of whether the gun is for his or her own
use or for use by another person. Gender of the purchaser was
generally not relevant. Dealers in the Midwest, South, and West were
more likely than those in the Northeast to be willing to sell a
handgun regardless of interviewer gender and sales condition. Although
dealers were less willing to make a sale when it would be illegal,
more than half were willing to sell a handgun even when it would be
illegal to do so.

This is, to our knowledge, the first study in the peer reviewed
literature on factors that might influence firearm dealers'
willingness to sell a handgun. The strengths of the study include its
design (for example, see Campbell and Stanley21). The population
included all dealers listed in the yellow pages of an internet
directory, an easily accessed source of information for many persons
wishing to purchase a firearm. Participating dealers were selected
from large US cities in states that contain over half (53%) of the US
population22 and 35.5% of the FFLs (federal firearm licensees) in the
US.1

Several matters warrant comment when interpreting the findings. First,
dealers' stated intent may not correspond to their actual behavior.
Although not necessarily a usual business practice, some dealers may
say that they would sell a handgun while on the telephone but not do
so if the potential customer was on-site. Alternatively, some dealers
might resist persuasion attempts on the telephone but might yield to
in-person pressure. Second, employees likely vary in their knowledge
of and compliance with firearms laws such that if an interviewer had
spoken with a different clerk at the same retailer, s/he might have
received a different answer. Although personnel training may vary
across and within stores, one "bad" clerk can implicate the entire
dealership. Third, the effect of price on willingness to sell is not
clear. If asked how much they were willing to spend, interviewers
stated "about $300". Handguns are available for less and for
substantially more. Perhaps dealer behavior would differ depending
upon the amount of money a customer was willing to spend. Fourth, the
effect of dealer location (that is, rural or urban) is unknown because
the sample included only urban dealers. Fifth, the effect of state
level regulation of firearm dealers is not examined in this study.
Sixth, we did not attempt to ascertain whether the participating
dealers held FFLs. One could assume that, if listed in a telephone
directory, the dealer is "regularly involved in the business of
selling firearms at wholesale or retail" and should have an FFL.2 It
was not possible, however, to ascertain this information without
arousing undue suspicion. And, finally, although only two or three
dealers seemed to be suspicious of the interviewers, skeptics may
wonder whether the dealers were simply "playing along" with the
caller.

To address the latter concern, we made 20 additional calls after the
study was complete. A dealer was randomly chosen from each city and
randomly assigned to each interviewer. The interviewer opened with "My
girl/boyfriend needs me to buy her/him a handgun because s/he isn't
allowed to". That is, the caller was ******** about wanting to buy a
gun for a prohibited purchaser. In 16 of the 20 calls, the dealer
responded with an unequivocal "no" and commented about such a purchase
being clearly illegal, a straw purchase, etc. Each of the four who
agreed to sell a handgun appeared to recognize that the sale would be
illegal. They said: (1) "As long as you have no record, you can come
down here and pick one up and put it in your name"; (2) "You can do
whatever you want after you walk out the door"; (3) "What you do with
it is your business. Legally you'd be responsible for it, you're more
than welcome to buy one. You can't transfer it to him—I assume he's
been turned down"; and (4) "She can't come in, pick one out and you
buy it. That's against the law". Interviewer: "I'd come, just me".
Clerk: "I'd have no problem with that". These comments suggest that,
even when expressly prohibited by law, dealer judgment enters into
their sales.


Key points

A primary focus of both criminal justice and public health efforts has
been keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

The US government has allocated the primary responsibility to firearm
dealers for monitoring that guns are not sold to persons who are
prohibited by law from buying one.

An experimental study of handgun dealers in the 20 largest cities in
the US found that dealers generally are willing to sell to a potential
customer regardless of whether the gun is for his or her own use or
for use by another person.

Although dealers were less willing to make a sale when the sale would
be illegal, more than half were willing to sell a handgun even when it
would be illegal to do so.


Implications for prevention
Buying a handgun for another person may be a generous act intended to
improve the recipient's ability to protect him/herself. It also can
provide legal cover for the recipient of the firearm because s/he is
not subject to a background check or other regulatory mechanisms.
Background checks are far from perfect,23 but they are the primary
means for screening those seeking to buy a firearm. It might be worth
considering whether to prohibit purchasing or selling guns as gifts
or, more generally, to prohibit purchasing or selling a firearm for
someone else. Individuals are already prohibited from purchasing a
firearm for a felon or other unauthorized purchaser; not allowing any
firearm purchase on behalf of another would be useful when the
purchaser or dealer is unaware of the recipient's relevant background.
Alternatively, it might be worth considering changing the law to
require a background check of the recipient of the firearm as well as
the purchaser.

Regulating gun transfers (for example, requiring transfers between
private parties to go through an FFL), as some states already do, is
another potentially promising method to decrease gun injuries and
fatalities.24 Such approaches necessitate consideration given that
current law enables people to break, with relative ease, the link
between a firearm and the individual who uses it. If firearms were
registered, transfer of ownership could be tracked more easily, and
options and considerations such as those listed in the previous
paragraph would be less relevant.

Educating retailers and enforcing existing laws are two other ways to
reduce illegal sales. Decoy operations in which law enforcement agents
impersonate a customer could help identify errant dealers. Such
approaches have been used in cigarette and alcohol sales to minors.

Recent data indicate that 57.4% of crime guns can be traced to 1.2% of
FFLs,7 and sales volume, although an obvious covariate, appears not to
be a determining factor.25 Likewise, in the aforementioned General
Accounting Office investigation, almost all FFLs adhered to federal
and state firearm purchase laws.23 Our findings differ. About half of
the dealers were willing to sell a handgun when such a sale would be
illegal. In addition, a few dealers seemed to be aware that such
action would be illegal in that they indicated that they would be
willing to skirt, if not openly violate, the law or they referred a
potential customer to another retailer who may be so inclined.


References

Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Firearms commerce in the United States 2001/2002. Washington, DC: US
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
2002.
18 USC 921(a)(11))
Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: results of a comprehensive
national survey on firearms ownership and use. Washington, DC: Police
Foundation, 1997.
Vernick JS, Teret SP. New courtroom strategies regarding firearms:
tort litigation against firearm manufacturers and constitutional
challenges to gun laws. Houston Law Review 1999;36:1713–54.
Gun Control Act of 1968. 18 USC 922 (b)(2).
Veen J, Dunbar S, Reuland M, et al. The BJA firearms trafficking
program: demonstrating effective strategies to control violent crime.
Police Executive Research Forum. Series: BJA Bulletin, 1997.
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Following the gun: enforcing federal laws against firearms
traffickers. Washington, DC: Department of the Treasury, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 2000.
Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 USC 922 (d) and (g).
Zawitz MW. Guns used in crime: firearms, crime and criminal justice:
selected findings. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1995
(publication number NCJ-148201).
Wintemute GJ, Teret SP, Kraus JF, et al. The choice of weapons in
firearm suicides. Am J Public Health 1988;78:824–6.[Abstract]
National Opinion Research Center. National gun policy survey 1998.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999.
Wachtel J. Sources of crime guns in Los Angeles, California. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Stategies and Management
1998;21:220–39.[CrossRef]
Wright JD, Rossi PH. Armed and considered dangerous: a survey of
felons and their firearms. Expanded edition. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter, 1994.
Beck A, Gilliard D, Greenfeld L, et al. Survey of prison inmates,
1991. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1993 (publication
number NCJ-136949).
Sheley JF, Wright JD. Gun acquisition and possession in selected
juvenile samples: research in brief. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice, 1993 (publication number NCJ-145326).
Wright MA, Wintemute GJ, Romero MP. A case-control study of multiple
purchase handguns: characteristics that predict their use in crime.
Presented at the APHA annual convention, November 10–13, 2002,
Philadelphia, PA.
Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of population: population of the 100
largest urban places. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census: table 22.
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Federal firearms regulations reference guide. Washington, DC:
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
2000.
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
General information. Available at:
http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/geninfo.htm.
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
State laws and published ordinances—firearms. 22nd Ed. Washington, DC:
Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 2000.
Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963.
US Census Bureau. Ranking tables for states: population in 2000 and
population change from 1990 to 2000. Available from URL:
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.pdf.
General Accounting Office. Firearms purchased from federal firearm
licensees using bogus identification. Washington, DC: US General
Accounting Office, 2001.
Cook PJ, Molliconi S, Cole T. Regulating gun markets. J Crim Law
Criminol 1995;86:59–92.
Wintemute GJ. Relationship between illegal use of handguns and handgun
sales volume. JAMA 2000;284:566–7.[Free Full Text]
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


2 14th March 03:17
robert frenchu
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


One can't reasonably expect dealers to do more than the law requires.
  Reply With Quote
3 15th March 11:44
rd (the sandman)
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


What state was that? As much as I hate to admit it, Sarah's purchase
seemed to be completely legal. It was a rifle, not a handgun, and she
was very open about the fact that it was a gift for her son.

RD
  Reply With Quote
4 15th March 11:44
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


I believe if you look at the laws on the books, any transfer of
ownership or posession of a firearm falls under the category of a
"sale", whether it was sold, or given to the third-party.

The buyer is therefore comitting a felony by not turning in a
background check on the "third-party", and should be incarcerated and
fined to the fullest extent of the law. Also if the dealer was aware
of the fact that the weapon was being purchased for a third-party, he
too should be prosecuted to the fullest for multiple felonies at a
federal level, not to mention any local ordnances that might apply.
  Reply With Quote
5 15th March 11:44
morton davis
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


After the fact, if I remember correctly, it was Delaware or Rhode Island and
a background check was required for the recipient of the gun..

-*MORT*-
  Reply With Quote
6 15th March 22:38
robert frenchu
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


Unless the government expects the gun dealer to be able to read minds,
they can't reasonably be expected to know if the buyer is telling the
truth about his ultimate intentions.

I suspect a Brady Brain Scan might be in order.
  Reply With Quote
7 16th March 09:35
jim yanik
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


"buying a handgun for someone else" also can imply a straw purchase,and
IMO,that was her meaning,not as a gift.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me
  Reply With Quote
8 17th March 18:34
jim alder
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


"A spokesperson for the Delaware Department of Justice at first
said that state law does not exempt background checks for family
gun gifts and said Brady might be guilty of making a "straw
purchase." However, the agency later said it had misinterpreted
the law."

--
"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins"
are invented nonsense." -- Robert Heinlein

"The same goes for crime." - Me
  Reply With Quote
9 18th March 16:03
yardpilot
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


Bunch of nonsense.
<further drivel snipped>
  Reply With Quote
10 18th March 16:03
yardpilot
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Buying a handgun for someone else: firearm dealer willingness to sell


Would that be the Jim or Sarah scan?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes




Copyright © 2006 SmartyDevil.com - Dies Mies Jeschet Boenedoesef Douvema Enitemaus -
666