Feds send Bastrop man to jail for selling gun to illegal alien

[CosmicCowboy]

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE...

FEDS CONVICT TEXAN FOR SELLING A GUN TO ILLEGAL ALIEN WITH TEXAS DRIVER’S LICENSE
In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.
The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the "Texas Gunshow" that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.
Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.
"Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling," commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, "who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?" He also said, "What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens."
Velte pointed out that "There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish." Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:
Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?
Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?
What has he been promised for his cooperation?
Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?
Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and 24 months of probation, and called Copeland "a liar" for not admitting guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated forfeiture proceedings. Copeland was also fired from his job due to the indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence.

[clambake]

dumb bubba.

[CosmicCowboy]

dumb bubba.

why is he dumb?

[clambake]

got what he deserved for selling guns this way. bet it's not the first time for this guy to do that.

[CosmicCowboy]

He sold it to a guy with a legitimate Texas Drivers License at a Legitimate legal gun show. He did nothing illegal. If the guy was illegal he shouldn't have had a Texas Drivers License.

[clambake]

all these guns shows should be banned.

[EmptyMan]

got what he deserved for selling guns this way. bet it's not the first time for this guy to do that.

So the U.S. govt. cries about racial profiling v. Arizona and then convicts a Vietnam vet for not racial profiling?

lol partisan hacks

[clambake]

So the U.S. govt. cries about racial profiling v. Arizona and then convicts a Vietnam vet for not racial profiling?

lol partisan hacks

it's about selling guns to illegals. you think the only illegals are mexicans?

[EmptyMan]

So racial profiling is not only acceptable but highly encouraged when it pertains to a subject in which the current administration is against? Got it.

lol partisan hacks

[CosmicCowboy]

it's about selling guns to illegals. you think the only illegals are mexicans?

The guy had a REAL Texas Drivers License. He's supposed to prove to DPS that he is legal before he can get one. How in hell was it the sellers fault the he sold to an illegal with a drivers license that supposedly proved he was legal?

[Blake]

why can't I find this story at a reputable news outlet?

[CosmicCowboy]

why can't I find this story at a reputable news outlet?

I don't know. Maybe because it appeared to be just a routine, run of the mill court case in AUSTIN and was considered non-news? I snoped it before I posted it...no denial there.

[clambake]

there should be a thorough background check paid for by anyone purchasing a firearm.

absoulutely. no same day transactions.

[CosmicCowboy]

there should be a thorough background check paid for by anyone purchasing a firearm.

absoulutely. no same day transactions.

It doesn't matter what CLAMBAKE thinks it SHOULD be. The seller complied with all state/federal laws. He was convicted because the guy he sold it to was illegal but had a "legal" drivers license.

[Blake]

Here is the actual ruling on the case.

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2215788/copelandmotiontosuppressoverruled-pdf-september-5-2010-1-15-pm-599k?da=y

If you have trouble understanding the ruling and why Copeland was convicted, let me know.

Cracks me up when people believe the first thing they read on the internet. Just another reason why I like this forum. :tu

[EmptyMan]

He dun goof'd when he said anything after being escorted outside by the agents/police. If you are ordered to leave a group and then surrounded by multiple officers that could be considered an implied interrogation even though the officers tell you are free to leave at any time.

That's a trick leo's use to bypass Miranda :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

So he was actually convicted of selling the gun to a legal resident who was actually making a straw purchase for an illegal alien and the guy who made the straw purchase was not prosecuted.

Riiiight.


that STILL reeks of Federal over-reach.

[clambake]

you get more pissy by the day.

[boutons_deux]

Sounds like the law-breaking ("I sell to fireams to anybody" ) asshole got Treaded On Me. I bet he wants Water The Tree (piss on it) of the ATF.

the gun show loophole is widely known as how many guns are sold to proxies for criminals.

The NRA and 2nd Amendment bullshit is all about the guns-n-ammo bu$ine$$, not about the Constitution.

[Bender]

there's no god damned "gun show loophole" you dumbassses.

[Blake]

So he was actually convicted of selling the gun to a legal resident who was actually making a straw purchase for an illegal alien and the guy who made the straw purchase was not prosecuted.

Riiiight.


that STILL reeks of Federal over-reach.

As soon as Aviles tried to hand him the money, that should have been the end of him selling anything to anyone in that group.

Unfortunately for Copeland, he was ignorant of the law. Maybe if he had gone to training and had gotten his license, he might have known better.

It's not any more of an overreach as someone who tries to buy beer for underage kids and the cashier is aware of it.

[CosmicCowboy]

As soon as Aviles tried to hand him the money, that should have been the end of him selling anything to anyone in that group.

Unfortunately for Copeland, he was ignorant of the law. Maybe if he had gone to training and had gotten his license, he might have known better.

It's not any more of an overreach as someone who tries to buy beer for underage kids and the cashier is aware of it.

So he was supposed to profile the guy as an illegal alien because he didn't want to show him his drivers license. OK.

Lets send him to federal prison for THAT.

[clambake]

dumb bubba.

[Blake]

So he was supposed to profile the guy as an illegal alien because he didn't want to show him his drivers license. OK.

Lets send him to federal prison for THAT.

So you are ok with someone selling guns to someone else that fails to provide any ID.

Duly noted for future reference.

[ducks]

he proved federal id

[CosmicCowboy]

So you are ok with someone selling guns to someone else that fails to provide any ID.

Duly noted for future reference.

[CosmicCowboy]

We aren't talking about a case of rocket launchers or hand grenades here. He sold a stinking 38 caliber pistol to a guy that showed him a valid Texas Drivers License.

What bullshit!

[boutons_deux]

right-wing gun nuts aren't too smart to go flaunting the law and taunting whoever walks buy, like u/c feds. :lol

[Blake]

We aren't talking about a case of rocket launchers or hand grenades here. He sold a stinking 38 caliber pistol to a guy that showed him a valid Texas Drivers License.


.....that clearly was going to turn around and give it to Aviles.....and did.

I wish I was terribly surprised you aren't getting this.

[CosmicCowboy]

And you think the guy should go to prison for 6 months? The little cocksucker that broke into my business 3 months ago and stole $40,000 worth of stuff and got caught forging a check he stole out of my desk just got probation...

[clambake]

And you think the guy should go to prison for 6 months? The little cocksucker that broke into my business 3 months ago and stole $40,000 worth of stuff and got caught forging a check he stole out of my desk just got probation...

whats his name?

[CosmicCowboy]

whats his name?

I don't remember. The adult probation officer called me this morning.

[clambake]

I don't remember. The adult probation officer called me this morning.

you don't remember the name of a guy that took you for 40 large?

please

[ChumpDumper]

Dude broke the law after loudly proclaiming his intent to break the law.

:tu

[clambake]

Dude broke the law after loudly proclaiming his intent to break the law.

:tu

that was pretty funny.

[CosmicCowboy]

Dude broke the law after loudly proclaiming his intent to break the law.

:tu

It is not a law that an individual making a sale has to do a background check. It was a new internal rule of the guys putting on gun show...not a law.

Try to keep up.

[CosmicCowboy]

you don't remember the name of a guy that took you for 40 large?

please

His name was irrelevant. Just a typical west side banger in a white wife beater. I'm not going vigilante.

[Blake]

Dude broke the law after loudly proclaiming his intent to break the law.

:tu

Although that really wasn't was he was being loud about, I'm going to guess that didn't help his cause. :lol

[clambake]

an unlicensed sale had to go through a licensed gun dealer for background verification.

[CosmicCowboy]

an unlicensed sale had to go through a licensed gun dealer for background verification.

Wrong.

By law transactions between individuals do not require background checks.

[ChumpDumper]

It is not a law that an individual making a sale has to do a background check. It was a new internal rule of the guys putting on gun show...not a law.

Try to keep up.Selling to "anyone" includes selling to illegal aliens.

Try to keep up.

[boutons_deux]

Wrong.

By law transactions between individuals do not require background checks.

aka, the gun show loophole.

[clambake]

Wrong.

By law transactions between individuals do not require background checks.

he broke the rule. hence the grumblings.

[clambake]

i think its shocking for an individual to be able to sell a gun to anyone.....no questions asked.

[CosmicCowboy]

i think its shocking for an individual to be able to sell a gun to anyone.....no questions asked.

Now you see why busting this guy was completely bogus.

[clambake]

Now you see why busting this guy was completely bogus.

i woulda busted every asshole in there, doing this.

[Blake]

Now you see why busting this guy was completely bogus.

Apparently the agents, judge and jury disagree with you.

So do I.

[CosmicCowboy]

i woulda busted every asshole in there, doing this.

There are no laws regulating the sale of guns between individuals in Texas. What exactly were you going to bust them for?

[CosmicCowboy]

Apparently the agents, judge and jury disagree with you.

So do I.

Yep, he got screwed. Hopefully he kicks their ass on appeal.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, he got screwed. Hopefully he kicks their ass on appeal.What would be the basis for appeal?

[CosmicCowboy]

For one thing, applying FFL Straw Purchase guidelines to an individual sale. The guy broke no state or federal laws that I can see.

[Blake]

For one thing, applying FFL Straw Purchase guidelines to an individual sale. The guy broke no state or federal laws that I can see.

He sold a gun to an illegal alien.

[ChumpDumper]

For one thing, applying FFL Straw Purchase guidelines to an individual sale. The guy broke no state or federal laws that I can see.There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[CosmicCowboy]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

link to the law he broke.

You can't.

[ALWAYS bet on BLACK]

guns need to be banned, you racist assholes like cosmiccowboy are destroying the nation with your hate filled , racist, pasty, hurtful, ignorant hearts.

[CosmicCowboy]

guns need to be banned, you racist assholes like cosmiccowboy are destroying the nation with your hate filled , racist, pasty, hurtful, ignorant hearts.

Go fuck yourself you ignorant asshole.

[ALWAYS bet on BLACK]

Go fuck yourself you ignorant asshole.
Why are you racist?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why are you racist?

Why are you stupid and illiterate?

[ChumpDumper]

link to the law he broke.

You can't.Sure I can.


(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose
of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable
cause to believe that such person--
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court
of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that
term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC922

[clambake]

cowboy on the quest to arm illegal aliens.

[ALWAYS bet on BLACK]

cowboy on the quest to arm illegal aliens.
:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure I can.



http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC922

The guy he sold it to was a Texas resident and presented a Valid Texas Drivers licence. I know the law. The law doesn't say anything about straw purchases on individual sales.

fail

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually it's Cowboy on the quest to make law enforcement follow the LAW. The guy got railroaded by the ATF on a bogus charge.

[ChumpDumper]

The guy he sold it to was a Texas resident and presented a Valid Texas Drivers licence. I know the law. The law doesn't say anything about straw purchases on individual sales.

failHe should have taken the gun back when he realized it wasn't for the person who produced the ID.

You don't know the law. Written codes are not the only source of law.

Fail.

[clambake]

He should have taken the gun back when he realized it wasn't for the person who produced the ID.

You don't know the law.

Fail.

why would bubba do that? he said, loudly, like a cowboy, that he'd sell a gun to anyone.

[LnGrrrR]

The guy he sold it to was a Texas resident and presented a Valid Texas Drivers licence. I know the law. The law doesn't say anything about straw purchases on individual sales.

fail

I'm not fully up to speed, but did the seller have a suspicion that it was a straw purchase? There are probably rules about that. (In the same way that an alcohol vendor would probably be in trouble if he sees a person talking to some kids outside, then comes in to buy a case of beer).

That's a gray area, to be sure.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not fully up to speed, but did the seller have a suspicion that it was a straw purchase? There are probably rules about that. (In the same way that an alcohol vendor would probably be in trouble if he sees a person talking to some kids outside, then comes in to buy a case of beer).

That's a gray area, to be sure.

He probably had a suspicion but the law says absolutely nothing about straw purchases. In fact, the law does not require any actual verification. Legally, just asking "is it OK for you to purchase guns?" is adequate.

[CosmicCowboy]

He should have taken the gun back when he realized it wasn't for the person who produced the ID.

You don't know the law. Written codes are not the only source of law.

Fail.

Oh OK...he violated Chumps unwritten law.

Which means Chump couldn't find a law he violated.

Thanks for playing.

[ChumpDumper]

He probably had a suspicion but the law says absolutely nothing about straw purchases. In fact, the law does not require any actual verification. Legally, just asking "is it OK for you to purchase guns?" is adequate.You have all the relevant case law that would apply here?

That would be interesting to read.

[CosmicCowboy]

You have all the relevant case law that would apply here?

That would be interesting to read.

You are the challenger. Prove me wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh OK...he violated Chumps unwritten law.

Which means Chump couldn't find a law he violated.

Thanks for playing.Actually, I provided a link to the black letter law he violated and you asked for.

You are the one claiming there is some case law that vindicates him.

Give me a link to that ruling.

Thanks in advance.

[ChumpDumper]

You are the challenger. Prove me wrong.Sorry, you are challenging the federal code.

Prove it wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

He probably had a suspicion but the law says absolutely nothing about straw purchases. In fact, the law does not require any actual verification. Legally, just asking "is it OK for you to purchase guns?" is adequate.

Ok, let's throw a hypothetical out there. (I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.)

Two men walk up to a seller, and one of them says, "Hello, here is my ID, and I would like to purchase this gun for my friend. His name is Abdul Ja-quim, and he is a terrorist. He plans on using this gun to shoot a government official. How much will that gun cost?"

Now, there may not be a law on the books that specifically prohibits this, but I doubt the scenario presented above would make the sale of that firearm illegal.

What if we made it slightly more realistic, and the purchaser just said, "Hello, I'd like to purchase this gun for my friend, who is not allowed by law to purchase guns."? Would that be kosher?

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, I provided a link to the black letter law he violated and you asked for.

You are the one claiming there is some case law that vindicates him.

Give me a link to that ruling.

Thanks in advance.

No you didn't. He didn't sell a gun to an illegal alien. He sold the gun to a Texas resident with a valid drivers license.

Next?

[clambake]

No you didn't. He didn't sell a gun to an illegal alien. He sold the gun to a Texas resident with a valid drivers license.

Next?

what did he do after he saw the guy hand the gun to his friend?

[LnGrrrR]

I would like to note that it mentions a special agent seeing Huerta (the purchaser) hand off the gun to Aviles... I haven't seen any mention of the seller noticing the hand-off. Additionally, I don't see why they didn't prosecute the illegal immigrant either.

The jury's reasoning for finding him guilty (that he essentially looked like an illegal immigrant because he was Mexican) is stupid too... I mean, in that case, 95% of San Antonio are illegal immigrants.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ok, let's throw a hypothetical out there. (I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.)

Two men walk up to a seller, and one of them says, "Hello, here is my ID, and I would like to purchase this gun for my friend. His name is Abdul Ja-quim, and he is a terrorist. He plans on using this gun to shoot a government official. How much will that gun cost?"

Now, there may not be a law on the books that specifically prohibits this, but I doubt the scenario presented above would make the sale of that firearm illegal.

What if we made it slightly more realistic, and the purchaser just said, "Hello, I'd like to purchase this gun for my friend, who is not allowed by law to purchase guns."? Would that be kosher?

If the seller was a FFL license holder that would clearly be a straw sale and would clearly be illegal.

Individual sales are not subject to the same laws. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's legal. Back to the mosque argument, just from the other side.

[CosmicCowboy]

what did he do after he saw the guy hand the gun to his friend?

What was he supposed to do? It wasn't his gun anymore. The new guy owned it and could give or sell it to anyone he pleased.

[ChumpDumper]

No you didn't. He didn't sell a gun to an illegal alien. He sold the gun to a Texas resident with a valid drivers license.

Next?He sold the gun to an illegal alien.

That is the law he broke, for which he was convicted and sentenced.

If you have a court ruling saying such straw purchases are legal, please provide a link to it.

Thanks in advance.

Really, CC. Try thinking about it. By your legal "reasoning" you can buy alcohol for a minor who brings a case of beer up to the register, takes the money out of his pocket, gives it to you to pay the cashier and then you can give the minor the beer all in plain sight of a policeman. That cashier would be in no jeopardy according to you.

Is this really what you are claiming?

[clambake]

What was he supposed to do? It wasn't his gun anymore. The new guy owned it and could give or sell it to anyone he pleased.

so, you didn't read about it, did you?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's legal. Back to the mosque argument, just from the other side.

Eh, because the US works more on common law than civil law, it might still be illegal; depends on if there are precedents set by our courts. On paper though, it seems there isn't a violation of law, just of the "spirit of the law" (which might still count, not a lawyer/judge).

[CosmicCowboy]

The jury's reasoning for finding him guilty (that he essentially looked like an illegal immigrant because he was Mexican) is stupid too... I mean, in that case, 95% of San Antonio are illegal immigrants.

Plus that reasoning in a Federal court is just dripping with irony considering the lawsuit against Arizona and the accusations of potential profiling.

[CosmicCowboy]

He sold the gun to an illegal alien.

That is the law he broke, for which he was convicted and sentenced.

If you have a court ruling saying such straw purchases are legal, please provide a link to it.

Thanks in advance.

Really, CC. Try thinking about it. By your legal "reasoning" you can buy alcohol for a minor who brings a case of beer up to the register, takes the money out of his pocket, gives it to you to pay the cashier and then you can give the minor the beer all in plain sight of a policeman. That cashier would be in no jeopardy according to you.

Is this really what you are claiming?

Chump, there are laws written specifically to address straw purchases on liquor sales. Not on individual gun sales.

[Blake]

I would like to note that it mentions a special agent seeing Huerta (the purchaser) hand off the gun to Aviles... I haven't seen any mention of the seller noticing the hand-off. Additionally, I don't see why they didn't prosecute the illegal immigrant either.

The seller negotiated the price with Aviles well before the hand off.

Aviles took the money out of his pocket.....Copeland asked for ID.....he produced no ID.......Huerta produced ID.......Aviles handed money to Huerta.......Huerta handed money to Copeland.........Copeland handed gun to Huerta........Huerta handed gun to Aviles.

I'm cure CC will spin this into further self-pwnage.


The jury's reasoning for finding him guilty (that he essentially looked like an illegal immigrant because he was Mexican) is stupid too... I mean, in that case, 95% of San Antonio are illegal immigrants.

I agree that they should go after anyone else that might be law breakers, but that does not, of course, excuse the seller in this particular case...

[CosmicCowboy]

The seller negotiated the price with Aviles well before the hand off.

Aviles took the money out of his pocket.....Copeland asked for ID.....he produced no ID.......Huerta produced ID.......Aviles handed money to Huerta.......Huerta handed money to Copeland.........Copeland handed gun to Huerta........Huerta handed gun to Aviles.



Again, the law only addresses straw sales from FFL holders. It does not address straw sales on individual sales

[Blake]

Again, the law only addresses straw sales from FFL holders. It does not address straw sales on individual sales

oh.....then clearly he should not have been arrested, tried, and found guilty in a court of law.

:downspin:

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, there are laws written specifically to address straw purchases on liquor sales.Not every possible straw sale. That is not how the legal system works.
Not on individual gun sales.I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the common law system. You provided no case law supporting your contention that individual straw gun sales are allowed by the federal court system. You can bet Copeland's lawyer would have done so had such a ruling existed.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It's not a straw sale, it's a direct sale under Blake's scenario. Also, he "otherwise disposed" of the firearm to an illegal alien.

[LnGrrrR]

Again, the law only addresses straw sales from FFL holders. It does not address straw sales on individual sales

Well, I mean, that's why we have courts, to determine cases like this. I would say that there doesn't seem to be a law against it, but the court may find him guilty anyways. I don't think the guy has much sense, if it played out as Blake described it. "What, you don't have ID? Does anyone else here have some ID they want to show me so they can purchase a gun for this man?" In that case, what's the point of even having to show an ID? :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not a straw sale, it's a direct sale under Blake's scenario. Also, he "otherwise disposed" of the firearm to an illegal alien.

He didn't know the guy was an illegal alien. He spoke good english. All he knew was that the guy didn't have a drivers license.

[Blake]

He didn't know the guy was an illegal alien. He spoke good english. All he knew was that the guy didn't have a drivers license.

So then why bother asking for IDs in the first place.

According to your logic, saying (in English) "I'm of age and a resident of this state" should be sufficient.

[clambake]

He didn't know the guy was an illegal alien. He spoke good english. All he knew was that the guy didn't have a drivers license.

then why did he make the guy give the gun back, even though he knew?

[CosmicCowboy]

And yeah, I think the guy was a dummy too, but that doesn't mean he should go to prison.

[CosmicCowboy]

So then why bother asking for IDs in the first place.

According to your logic, saying (in English) "I'm of age and a resident of this state" should be sufficient.

Actually, it almost is...asking for a drivers license is above and beyond the law. It would be adequate for the purchaser to state that they are of age and legally entitled to purchase firearms...

[ChumpDumper]

And yeah, I think the guy was a dummy too, but that doesn't mean he should go to prison.It's a work camp, but there are plenty of stupid criminals in prison and work camps.

[Blake]

Actually, it almost is...asking for a drivers license is above and beyond the law. It would be adequate for the purchaser to state that they are of age and legally entitled to purchase firearms...

Apparently it's not adequate.

[LnGrrrR]

Actually, it almost is...asking for a drivers license is above and beyond the law. It would be adequate for the purchaser to state that they are of age and legally entitled to purchase firearms...

Why would you even need to ask the purchaser to state they are of age and legally entitled to purchase? In the case you mentioned, the purchaser could say such and hand the gun right over to someone they knew wasn't able to legally purchase.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the actual ruling on the case.

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2215788/copelandmotiontosuppressoverruled-pdf-september-5-2010-1-15-pm-599k?da=y

If you have trouble understanding the ruling and why Copeland was convicted, let me know.

Cracks me up when people believe the first thing they read on the internet. Just another reason why I like this forum. :tu
Yep, looks like he knowing sold to someone not legal to purchase the weapon.

[Wild Cobra]

So he was actually convicted of selling the gun to a legal resident who was actually making a straw purchase for an illegal alien and the guy who made the straw purchase was not prosecuted.

Riiiight.


that STILL reeks of Federal over-reach.
Yes, it's overreaching, but anti-gun liberals love to do that.

[Wild Cobra]

We aren't talking about a case of rocket launchers or hand grenades here. He sold a stinking 38 caliber pistol to a guy that showed him a valid Texas Drivers License.

What bullshit!
It's like an underage person wanting to buy beer. When the store clerk refuses to sell it without ID, the kid asks the next costumer to buy it for him. Under such situations, the store owner and clerk would still be cited for selling to a minor if they made that sale.

[CosmicCowboy]

Have you read the whole thread?

[Wild Cobra]

Actually it's Cowboy on the quest to make law enforcement follow the LAW. The guy got railroaded by the ATF on a bogus charge.
He had the intent to sell at least. It was obvious the purchase was for the man who would not produce ID. Sorry, often agree with you. Not this time. Not under the circumstances.

[Wild Cobra]

I would like to note that it mentions a special agent seeing Huerta (the purchaser) hand off the gun to Aviles... I haven't seen any mention of the seller noticing the hand-off. Additionally, I don't see why they didn't prosecute the illegal immigrant either.

The jury's reasoning for finding him guilty (that he essentially looked like an illegal immigrant because he was Mexican) is stupid too... I mean, in that case, 95% of San Antonio are illegal immigrants.
I'll bet because it was a sting against this guy. The Hispanics were probably part of a sting.

[Wild Cobra]

Have you read the whole thread?
Now I have, and I haven't changed my mind.

Let's assume you are a store clerk who refuses to sell beer to a minor. then and adult says "hey... I can buy that for you." and asks to buy the beer. Do you knowingly sell that beer knowing in the parking lot, the minor will be getting it?

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the actual ruling on the case.

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2215788/copelandmotiontosuppressoverruled-pdf-september-5-2010-1-15-pm-599k?da=y

Actually, that's a ruling on evidence for the case. It would be nice to see the actual ruling.

[CosmicCowboy]

Now I have, and I haven't changed my mind.

Let's assume you are a store clerk who refuses to sell beer to a minor. then and adult says "hey... I can buy that for you." and asks to buy the beer. Do you knowingly sell that beer knowing in the parking lot, the minor will be getting it?

No, because laws specifically address sales of alcoholic beverages to minors through straw purchases. A convenience store clerk operates under a TABC license and the rules that go along with it.

[CosmicCowboy]

more bullshit

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=4771

[clambake]

I'll bet because it was a sting against this guy. The Hispanics were probably part of a sting.

if so, good sting.

[CosmicCowboy]

if so, good sting.

We get it. You are anti-gun.

[clambake]

We get it. You are anti-gun.

i'm not anti-gun. i have guns. i've had guns my entire life.

[Blake]

Now I have, and I haven't changed my mind.

Let's assume you are a store clerk who refuses to sell beer to a minor. then and adult says "hey... I can buy that for you." and asks to buy the beer. Do you knowingly sell that beer knowing in the parking lot, the minor will be getting it?

that's a mighty fine analogy!

[MannyIsGod]

I'm fairly certain that there are specific laws governing straw purchases on the books and that these laws apply to all gun sales not just those made by someone with an FFL.

[Blake]

Actually, that's a ruling on evidence for the case.

You appear to be correct.


It would be nice to see the actual ruling.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gun+dealer+sentenced+6+months

[Blake]

more bullshit

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=4771

why is it bullshit to assess the need for such reform?

what is the proposed reform?

[Oh, Gee!!]

He didn't know the guy was an illegal alien. He spoke good english. All he knew was that the guy didn't have a drivers license.

if he had "reasonable cause to believe" the actual purchaser/disposee was illegal, he's committed a crime. the prosecution put forth their case as to why the defendant had "reasonable cause to believe," and a judge or jury believed that evidence. case closed.

[CosmicCowboy]

if he had "reasonable cause to believe" the actual purchaser/disposee was illegal, he's committed a crime. the prosecution put forth their case as to why the defendant had "reasonable cause to believe," and a judge or jury believed that evidence. case closed.


"In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.""

So the governments case was that the defendant should have racial profiled the buyer.

Nice.

[Winehole23]

He should have refused the sale after the straw buyer handed the gun to someone else in front of him. Bad decision.

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

[Winehole23]

On whose part?

[Winehole23]

The hypocrisy of the Feds is neither here nor there for me. Dude was indicted by a grand jury. Another jury sustained the charges. It's called accountability.

[CosmicCowboy]

That in a Federal Court, a Federal Prosecutor would advocate racial profiling against hispanics by a white guy, and specifically stated the defendant should have known they were wetbacks because they 1) Were hispanic 2) spoke spanish (and english) and 3) wore cowboy clothes.

WTF?

The UNIFORMED POLICEMAN AT THE DOOR didn't even have the right to ask them if they were illegal aliens.

[Blake]

So the governments case was that the defendant should have racial profiled the buyer.

Nice.


"In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case."

what is the source of this quote?

link?

[Blake]

That in a Federal Court, a Federal Prosecutor would advocate racial profiling against hispanics by a white guy, and specifically stated the defendant should have known they were wetbacks because they 1) Were hispanic 2) spoke spanish (and english) and 3) wore cowboy clothes.

link?

[Wild Cobra]

more bullshit

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=4771
Cool...

Maybe it will be on C-Span.... Maybe. Since the demonrats took over congress, they allow C-Span far less access.

[Wild Cobra]

No, because laws specifically address sales of alcoholic beverages to minors through straw purchases. A convenience store clerk operates under a TABC license and the rules that go along with it.
Now I agree with you to a point. However, you have a technicality, and we still haven't seen the actual ruling. The intent of the law was clearly violated. It technically may not have been, but we still need to see the ruling.

[Wild Cobra]

We get it. You are anti-gun.

No.

I am pro gun, and I disagree with most our laws being necessary. I simply do my best to separate my opinion from law. They rarely agree.

Do I think he should have been prosecuted? No, but because I believe the government has no right here. However, they do.

[Wild Cobra]

You appear to be correct.



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gun+dealer+sentenced+6+months
That doesn't help any.

[Wild Cobra]

why is it bullshit to assess the need for such reform?

what is the proposed reform?
You trust this congress to reform gun legislation?

Get real.

[Blake]

That doesn't help any.

It's pretty clear the ruling was a conviction on the charge of selling a gun to an illegal alien.

I'm not sure why you haven't figured that out.

[Blake]

You trust this congress to reform gun legislation?

Get real.

I don't trust you to comprehend my questions.

[Wild Cobra]

It's pretty clear the ruling was a conviction on the charge of selling a gun to an illegal alien.

I'm not sure why you haven't figured that out.
I know that. However, if the ruling only cites the 18 USC 922(d)(1)(a), then it will be easily overturned. There has to be more law involved, else it is a bogus conviction.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That in a Federal Court, a Federal Prosecutor would advocate racial profiling against hispanics by a white guy, and specifically stated the defendant should have known they were wetbacks because they 1) Were hispanic 2) spoke spanish (and english) and 3) wore cowboy clothes.

WTF?

The UNIFORMED POLICEMAN AT THE DOOR didn't even have the right to ask them if they were illegal aliens.

sounds like a hell of a trial attorney, IMO.

[Blake]

I know that. However, if the ruling only cites the 18 USC 922(d)(1)(a), then it will be easily overturned. There has to be more law involved, else it is a bogus conviction.

yes, the agents, prosecutor, judge and jury were all out to get Copeland who himself had a sorry lawyer.

Shit happens, even to the innocent.

[Oh, Gee!!]

if the ruling only cites the 18 USC 922(d)(1)(a), then it will be easily overturned.

no, it won't.


There has to be more law involved, else it is a bogus conviction.

no, it isn't.