Inheriting a gun

That's not what you responded to. @AHM said cops had been convicted of flipping Glocks, i.e., buying them to resell. You said that was BS. AHM did not say it was illegal for a cop to buy a Glock, decide after some time that he didn't want it, and resell it.

You're trying really hard but it won't stick. @AHM didn't say he got pinched for reselling guns, or for a straw sale. He implied the conviction was for reselling (flipping) an off-list gun (Glock), which isn't what happened. That's a HUGE distinction and makes all the difference in what will be prosecuted.
.
 
You're trying really hard but it won't stick. @AHM didn't say he got pinched for reselling guns, or for a straw sale. He implied the conviction was for reselling (flipping) an off-list gun (Glock), which isn't what happened. That's a HUGE distinction and makes all the difference in what will be prosecuted.
.
You asked for and were given an example of a cop getting in trouble buying a gun with no intent to keep it.

AHM wrote:
1602164195672.png

AHM was warning OP that it should not look like the cop was buying the gun for the purpose of transferring it to someone else.
No one is claiming that it's illegal to buy a gun, decide you don't like it, and then resell it.
You can split hairs on "straw" vs. "flipping" but in the end, it's the act of knowingly buying a gun with the intent that someone different will end up with it.

I understand that the cop wasn't arrested for reselling the gun specifically, but I never said that it was, and I don't think AHM implied that either.
 
Last edited:
No cop has been busted in Mass for reselling their handgun ...
Lemme go this far, for the truthiness.

I wrote "cops", plural.

I thought the case I was thinking of was two cops, jacked up in a single (joint) trial.

The case that @daekken kindly dredged up is one cop/one trial(/two guns).

Given a choice, I am more likely to be mistaken
about the details of whatever case I saw,
and I'll bet it was that case,
than that there are a few+ distinct cases.

So I can't say that there's some new fad of scouring eFA-10's or 4473's
for cops reselling Glocks. But OP doesn't want to find out the hard way.


A question arises that NES may never definitively resolve from mere public info
(unless someone On The Job whispers a rumored answer to us),
is how did the cop get on the radar,
and why did the law get applied to him?

It looks to probably be that he was selling guns to gang members.
They found a gun on a thug, and followed the chain backwards.

Who found the gun on the thug - a Fed, or BPD?

Was there an active investigation of the gang,
and this was a loose end they couldn't resist pursuing?
Or was it just a lucky traffic stop?


Things are so bad nowadays that it's surprising that
the cop was even made to quit,
let alone that he was prosecuted. Sigh.

Is there some prosecutor that has a hard-on for straw purchases
(in marked contrast to the way that no state prosecutor has ever had for enforcing the Sullivan Law,
and no Federal prosecutor has for bringing Federal charges against FPP's in possession
when the criminals are already getting state charges)?

Or is there some authority (prosecution, or police brass)
that has a hard-on for cops abusing their channel privileges in general,
or for cops leaking Glocks to the public in particular?


But particularly in light of the above question,
and the ragtime in the Patch article(*),
was his biggest sin selling guns to gang members,
or conducting straw sales (lying on 4473's about ultimate recipients),
or going into business without an FFL,
or selling guns he'd pulled from a policeman-only sales channel,
or selling guns (Glocks) that are FTF-only in Mass?

(*) Patch balderdash:
Karani purchased the firearms, which cannot be acquired by civilians,​
using his police identification and falsely certified that the firearms were for his official police use.​
During one purchase, Karani also indicated that the firearm was not for resale.​
Bolding mine.
Because that's just crap.

The MSM couldn't find the truth with both hands and a flashlight.
But whoever gave the interview/press conference might actually
believe that Glocks cannot be acquired by civilians.

¿Quien esta mas estúpido?
 
... was his biggest sin selling guns to gang members,
or conducting straw sales (lying on 4473's about ultimate recipients),
or going into business without an FFL,
or selling guns he'd pulled from a policeman-only sales channel,
or selling guns (Glocks) that are FTF-only in Mass?
I invite @67ray to answer that definitively.

Everyone's entitled to their own personal opinion of which straw broke the camel's back.
But only the DA can say for sure.
 
Last edited:
The gun itself is fine, the issue is the magazine. If you are not exempted by being a Law Enforcement Officer yourself (or some other "more equal than others" status), then the magazine must be pre-ban, manufactured prior to Sept. 1994. Otherwise, the mag gets you 1-10 years in the stockades.
2.5 to 10 but who's counting.
 
I have a 26 and 27 only difference is the extractor and upper. He could get a lone wolf conversion barrel and shoot both 9 and 40 for short money. And if he has 40 mags he doesn't need 9 mags for conversation
Stop telling ppl that the 40 mag does not work flawless I know from experience you can push all them 9 mm down ok but they definitely don’t always feed
 
Stop telling ppl that the 40 mag does not work flawless I know from experience you can push all them 9 mm down ok but they definitely don’t always feed
So should I not base upon my experience. I said he didn't need them for a conversation. I shoot 9mm out of my 22 with 40 mags and a conversation barrel never had an issue. Also have used mags from my 27 in my 26 with out an issue. Maybe you have an spring issue
 
Back
Top Bottom