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.
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.
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.
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?
so, you didn't read about it, did you?
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).
Plus that reasoning in a Federal court is just dripping with irony considering the lawsuit against Arizona and the accusations of potential profiling.
Chump, there are laws written specifically to address straw purchases on liquor sales. Not on individual gun sales.
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.
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...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.
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.
Not every possible straw sale. That is not how the legal system works.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.Not on individual gun sales.
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.
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?
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.
then why did he make the guy give the gun back, even though he knew?
And yeah, I think the guy was a dummy too, but that doesn't mean he should go to prison.
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 en led to purchase firearms...
It's a work camp, but there are plenty of stupid criminals in prison and work camps.
Apparently it's not adequate.
Why would you even need to ask the purchaser to state they are of age and legally en led 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.
Yep, looks like he knowing sold to someone not legal to purchase the weapon.Here is the actual ruling on the case.
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2215...5-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.
Yes, it's overreaching, but anti-gun liberals love to do that.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
