Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@oralloy,

Quote:

Oops. Someone's in trouble.

Yes a family member of his a sister maybe I did not hear the details is in trouble.

Not sure what the punishments levels happen to be for being a straw purchaser under federal laws.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Oops. Someone's in trouble.

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=319

Top penalty rarely given
Although the maximum federal penalty for participating in a straw purchase is a 10-year prison term, in practice sentencing guidelines call for only 2 to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment for someone caught providing as many as a dozen guns to a convicted felon. That's half the mandatory (5-year) minimum for possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine.

Straw purchases--the term derives from the expression "straw man," a person whose identity is used as a disguise--have been a factor in some of the most prominent local and national shooting tragedies.

The .357-caliber revolver used to kill Chicago Police Officer Michael Ceriale was bought by a South Side man who paid a cocaine debt to the Gangster Disciples by serving as a front for some of their gun purchases.

Two shotguns and a rifle used in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre were purchased by Dylan Klebold's 18-year-old girlfriend. Still 17, Klebold wasn't old enough to buy the weapons, but under state law it was legal for his girlfriend to not only buy the guns but also to give them to a minor.

In the Chicago area, someone with a clean record typically earns $50 to $100 per gun as a straw purchaser, according to local ATF agents and members of the Chicago Police Department's anti-gun enforcement unit.

Hard to convict `fronts'
Because of the nation's hodgepodge of state and federal gun laws, it's difficult to catch and convict people who act as fronts to buy weapons for felons. In essence, the authorities must prove the straw purchaser knew he or she was buying a gun for someone who couldn't pass the background check and deliberately flouted the laws.

The Brady Act requires only licensed gun dealers to do buyer background checks and keep sales records on firearms.

But there are no federal checks on weapons that change hands at a gun show, a meeting on the street, via newspaper ad or the Internet. In most states, the original owner need not even keep a record when selling a gun secondhand or otherwise disposing of a firearm, although Illinois is an exception.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

It banned combinations of harmless cosmetic features.

So, did it ban pistol grips or not?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It banned combinations of harmless cosmetic features.

So, did it ban pistol grips or not?

Within the context of my previous explanation, yes it did.

1 Reply

Quote:

James Zimmerman of SelwayArmory.com, a website that sells guns, ammunition and knives, says that sales really took off on Dec. 19 after President Barack Obama held a White House press conference announcing that Vice President Joe Biden would lead a team tasked with coming up with "concrete proposals" to curb gun violence.

That day, one customer ordered 32,000 rounds of ammunition from SelwayArmory.com, worth close to $18,000. The order had to be shipped from the company's Lolo, Mont., office to Kentucky on a freight truck.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fearful-ban-frenzied-buyers-swarm-gun-stores-18086623?page=2

M855 NATO Green Tip, I wonder?

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
You forgot another method to prevent children being killed by guns, which is to get rid of all biological adults.

Except that, in this country, we have children shooting, and killing, each other with guns.

We have had elementary school children bring loaded guns to school.

We have a gun fetish in this country--look how BillRM keeps referring to the 300 million guns in circulation. The least we can do, to try to stem the tide of gun violence in this country is to have better, and tighter, regulations and controls over these guns. And I do think we will move toward that.

But the thing is if we get rid of all biological adults, a biological adult such as you wouldn't have to worry your pretty little head about any of that. The dead minds no business of the living.

Besides that, would there be schools? Who will teach the children about anything worthwhile or worthless, let alone about guns or what a gun is? How soon will the human species go extinct from the absence of the age old adage "be prosperous and multiply?"
An interesting food for thought.

1 Reply

A song for Oraboy

Rap

1 Reply

Putting Newtown in Perspective

Child Gun Deaths Nationwide Number Nearly 6 Newtown Massacres

Rap

0 Replies

@raprap,

raprap the retard wrote:

A song for Oraboy

Sorry. I don't do video downloads.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Oralboy jerks off to gun magazines and stories of US troops slaughtering innocents.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Oralboy jerks off to gun magazines and stories of US troops slaughtering innocents.

JTT stop being a creep.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You're offended by a few coarse words but you celebrate the slaughter of millions of innocents at the hands of the US; you delight to the terrorism, the war crimes, the theft of the wealth of poor people around the globe by the US.

Damn strange sense of "morality", Oralboy.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Oraloy the lesser wrote:

raprap the retard wrote:

If Oraboy reduces himself to rebuttal by ad hominem--then Oraboy's superior status as a superior debate logic is nonexistent.

Consequently Oraboy "the superior" is lying about possessing logic

So Oraboy is not in possession of superior logic.

And Oraboy's claim to possess superior logic is a lie.

So Oraboy is a liar----OED

I luv ya Oraboy, your prattle never ceases to provide amusement.

Rap

1 Reply

@raprap,

raprap the retard wrote:

So Oraboy is not in possession of superior logic.

So Oraboy is a liar----OED

Feel free to try to find any untrue statements from me or any flaws in my logic.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Easily done Oraboy

http://able2know.org/topic/203766-126#post-5210621

You are way too easy.

Rap

1 Reply

@raprap,

raprap the retard wrote:

oralloy wrote:
raprap the retard wrote:
So Oraboy is not in possession of superior logic.

So Oraboy is a liar----OED

Feel free to try to find any untrue statements from me or any flaws in my logic.

Easily done Oraboy

Not really. You'll certainly never be able to do it.

Unless you want to count that bit of trivia about what gun the batman shooter switched to when his magazine jammed. But that was superfluous to the point that was being made.

(Presuming that you were even right about that trivia. It really wasn't worth looking up.)

0 Replies

re oralloy:

Your "facts" are wrong about what the assault weapons ban said. Your facts about the Constitution are not facts, they are an interpretation of what the 5 justice majority said in Heller. Your interpretation does not, in fact, agree with what Scalia said in the majority decision, nor what he has been saying since. They also are completely at odds with what the 4 dissenters and a number of other legal scholars (and a number of other legal rulings and interpretations) said over the last 200 years. Therefore what you state as absolute fact about what the Supreme Court will decide when it comes down to cases of open carry and weapons outside the home is total conjecture, rather than fact. As you know, or should, Supreme Court decisions are mutable, and consequently so is the law.

A great deal a of what you claim as "fact" is equally conjecture.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Your "facts" are wrong about what the assault weapons ban said.

No. I had that right.

MontereyJack wrote:

Your facts about the Constitution are not facts, they are an interpretation of what the 5 justice majority said in Heller. Your interpretation does not, in fact, agree with what Scalia said in the majority decision, nor what he has been saying since.

By "facts about the Constitution", I can only presume you refer to the standards of review that the courts have used to apply the Constitution throughout history.

That the courts use those standards of review to apply the Constitution is indeed a fact.

And no, Scalia has not announced any deviation from those long-standing standards of review.

MontereyJack wrote:

They also are completely at odds with what the 4 dissenters and a number of other legal scholars (and a number of other legal rulings and interpretations) said over the last 200 years.

Thus the importance of voting for Republicans if you care about civil rights.

MontereyJack wrote:

Therefore what you state as absolute fact about what the Supreme Court will decide when it comes down to cases of open carry and weapons outside the home is total conjecture, rather than fact.

As long as we retain five justices who care about supporting the Constitution, the outcome is pretty clear.

MontereyJack wrote:

As you know, or should, Supreme Court decisions are mutable, and consequently so is the law.

A great deal a of what you claim as "fact" is equally conjecture.

The only thing that will prevent the Supreme Court from applying the Constitution is Obama packing the court with Constitution-hating justices.

0 Replies

And none of that is fact. It's only your projection of what you hope happens. That's not fact, nor is it truth. And yes, you are in fact wrong about what the assault weapons ban in fact said.

0 Replies

And none of that is fact. It's only your projection of what you hope happens. That's not fact, nor is it truth. And yes, you are in fact wrong about what the assault weapons ban said.

1 Reply

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know