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

Have you read the whole thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Here is the actual ruling on the case.

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2215...5-pm-599k?da=y

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

more bullshit

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

---

if so, good sting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

if so, good sting.

---

We get it. You are anti-gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

We get it. You are anti-gun.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

---

You appear to be correct.

Quote:

---

It would be nice to see the actual ruling.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

more bullshit

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

---

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

what is the proposed reform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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.

---

Quote:

---

"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.

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

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

On whose part?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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

Nice.

---

Quote:

---

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

more bullshit

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings...ng.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.