WI - Straw Buyer Sentenced

[Kevlar]

A man who sold a gun to a blind drug dealer and others in Milwaukee over a five-year period was sentenced Monday to a year and a day in prison by a federal judge.

Derrick Marshall, 40, told investigators he bought the guns from Badger Outdoors or Badger Guns in West Milwaukee. When he later sold them on the street, he told agents he "felt like he made a deal with the devil," according to court documents.

"You sell the gun and you don't know nothing about the person you sell it to, and you don't want to know nothing," Marshall, the son of a retired Milwaukee police officer, told agents when he was arrested. "That's why I was always telling the people, 'Now don't go out and do anything crazy with this thing.' Then after, I'd be praying that nothing ever happened."

The case provides a window to the practice of straw buying in the Milwaukee area.....

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/99809534.html.

 

[44marty]

Pretty light sentence IMO

 

[RichM]

Is anyone concerned that the "Straw Purchase" laws could be twisted and tortured so that any sale of a gun after a purchase from a gun shop will be construed as an illegal sale?

I have a relative in the midwest, in a state where no paperwork is required for the sale of a firearm. He has both bought and sold firearms on nothing more than a handshake and transfer of cash. After my conversations with him, he'll now ask to see a driver's license just to make sure that it's not from another state, but he expects that he'll get a lot of resistance for that.

I know, this is just the tinfoil talking...

 

[Erebus]

Should have thrown the book at him. It's jackasses like him that are giving the Deval Patricks of the world ammo to attack our liberties.

 

[BE4TNUT]

Is anyone concerned that the "Straw Purchase" laws could be twisted and tortured so that any sale of a gun after a purchase from a gun shop will be construed as an illegal sale?

I have a relative in the midwest, in a state where no paperwork is required for the sale of a firearm. He has both bought and sold firearms on nothing more than a handshake and transfer of cash. After my conversations with him, he'll now ask to see a driver's license just to make sure that it's not from another state, but he expects that he'll get a lot of resistance for that.

I know, this is just the tinfoil talking...

If I were him I would make them provide a drivers license, and their gun license and make photocopies for my records. It seems sketchy not needing any sort of paperwork filled out for a sale of a gun.

BE4TNUT

 

[RichM]

If I were him I would make them provide a drivers license, and their gun license and make photocopies for my records. It seems sketchy not needing any sort of paperwork filled out for a sale of a gun.

BE4TNUT

Not sketchy; that's the way it works in the free parts of the country. A firearm is a tool, except for us in MA (and in the other red states), where they're very concerned that the gun is evil, and it imparts its evil onto its bearer.

My relative wouldn't even ask for a driver's license except that he lives near a state line, and I told him that it was a felony to buy or sell either a handgun or a long gun to a resident of another state.

 

[drgrant]

Is anyone concerned that the "Straw Purchase" laws could be twisted and tortured so that any sale of a gun after a purchase from a gun shop will be construed as an illegal sale?

Yes, look at the Michael Lara case if you want to be concerned. The feds attempted to railroad him despite having extremely poor evidence and zero evidence in the realm of any criminal intent on his part.

That said, I'd put a fair amount of money down that in this particular case referenced here, this guy did things in such a way that he basically gave the feds a nice neat playbook of "unlawful intent" to put him in prison with. He probably in part, talked his way into that jail cell. This case here obviously is a more appropriate enforcement of the law, eg, a "fair catch". Even if I don't agree (personally) with these laws, I can't say that BATFE really stretched anything here.... this guy was 110% breaking the law, no real excuses.

ETA:

My relative wouldn't even ask for a driver's license except that he lives near a state line, and I told him that it was a felony to buy or sell either a handgun or a long gun to a resident of another state.

IIRC its a felony to -knowingly- do it. There's nothing in even Federal law that says you have to check ID, etc. If you live in a free state, you're selling a shotgun in the local paper, you agree to meet the guy at the local ratdonalds, and a guy pulls up in a car with a local plate on it, most people just go on "good faith" and believe it or not, that's enough to satisfy the law... of course, if that guy comes up to you and then says "Well, I really live in CA, not Montana" and you still sell him the gun, then you would 110% culpable Federal felony jailbait at that point.

-Mike

 

[center442]

In November 2005, Marshall went to Badger Outdoors with Drinkwater, the blind man who had been convicted of a drug felony, records show. The two were longtime friends, records say.

The Ruger that Marshall bought for Drinkwater was recovered by police at Drinkwater's home in March 2006. Federal forms ask if the purchaser is buying the gun for someone else. Marshall was charged with lying on that form.

Documents indicate that in 2009 federal agents noticed a pattern of guns bought by Marshall that had been recovered in criminal investigations.

Marshall may have been able to argue that some of his gun sales were made when he needed money, but the one above sure sounds like a straw sale to me.

 

[Mr Weebles]

A man who sold a gun to a blind drug dealer

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Sibb]

Is anyone concerned that the "Straw Purchase" laws could be twisted and tortured so that any sale of a gun after a purchase from a gun shop will be construed as an illegal sale?

I have a relative in the midwest, in a state where no paperwork is required for the sale of a firearm. He has both bought and sold firearms on nothing more than a handshake and transfer of cash. After my conversations with him, he'll now ask to see a driver's license just to make sure that it's not from another state, but he expects that he'll get a lot of resistance for that.

I know, this is just the tinfoil talking...

There was no twisting of the law here. This guy planed to sell guns on the streets to make a buck, and that's a crime. He should have had the book not only thrown at him, but inserted in some place painful. It's people like him that give the antis their legitimate ammunition.

Now that SCOTUS had cleared up that the second amendment is incorporated under the 14th. There isn't a good reason to fight gun registration. The NRA should now switch gears on the topic. It shows that we are not all loons and that these people supplying guns to criminals are "our" enemies too.

 

[blindfire]

There was no twisting of the law here. This guy planed to sell guns on the streets to make a buck, and that's a crime. He should have had the book not only thrown at him, but inserted in some place painful. It's people like him that give the antis their legitimate ammunition.

Now that SCOTUS had cleared up that the second amendment is incorporated under the 14th. There isn't a good reason to fight gun registration. The NRA should now switch gears on the topic. It shows that we are not all loons and that these people supplying guns to criminals are "our" enemies too.

Sibb..you got your asbestos suite on?

 

[Alchemist17]

I don't understand how this is possible - WI doesn't have a "one gun a month" law in place, therefore police are powerless to even track straw purchases, let alone catch someone in the act. Isn't that what we've been told is the case in MA?

 

[maee]

"That's why I was always telling the people, 'Now don't go out and do anything crazy with this thing.' Then after, I'd be praying that nothing ever happened."

Aww, he's such a caring person, selling guns to blind drug dealers, that I'm inclined just to give him a free pass on this one-- NOT.

 

[Sibb]

I don't understand how this is possible - WI doesn't have a "one gun a month" law in place, therefore police are powerless to even track straw purchases, let alone catch someone in the act. Isn't that what we've been told is the case in MA?

My guess is they caught someone he sold a gun to, and that person snitched on him.

 

[Alchemist17]

I don't understand how this is possible - WI doesn't have a "one gun a month" law in place, therefore police are powerless to even track straw purchases, let alone catch someone in the act. Isn't that what we've been told is the case in MA?

My guess is they caught someone he sold a gun to, and that person snitched on him.

(this was meant as sarcasm directed at H4102)

 

[Sibb]

(this was meant as sarcasm directed at H4102)

I'm over due for coffee lol

 

[drgrant]

There was no twisting of the law here. This guy planed to sell guns on the streets to make a buck, and that's a crime. He should have had the book not only thrown at him, but inserted in some place painful. It's people like him that give the antis their legitimate ammunition.

I don't think that Rich meant that this particular case was dubious in terms of merit, but rather, the potential for BATFE to abuse the law to their favor certainly does, and they have done it, as we've seen in the past.

If you read the relevant portions of the US code on the matter you will soon discover that what you THINK is a straw purchase, and what actually IS a straw purchase, in the eyes of the law,, are actually two different things. A lot of people think it's just "buying a gun for a known prohibited person" but it goes way, way beyond that.

There are innocuous things you can do as a gun owner when buying a gun, without criminal intent, that can put you in "straw purchase eligibility land" in the eyes of BATFE.

-Mike

Now that SCOTUS had cleared up that the second amendment is incorporated under the 14th. There isn't a good reason to fight gun registration.

Seriously? You don't really understand the dangers of it, apparently, or you have way too much faith in the government to actually control itself in instances
where it would matter. I don't. Registration is still universally bad, any way you slice it.

-Mike

 

[Sibb]

I don't think that Rich meant that this particular case was dubious in terms of merit, but rather, the potential for BATFE to abuse the law to their favor certainly does, and they have done it, as we've seen in the past.

If you read the relevant portions of the US code on the matter you will soon discover that what you THINK is a straw purchase, and what actually IS a straw purchase, in the eyes of the law,, are actually two different things. A lot of people think it's just "buying a gun for a known prohibited person" but it goes way, way beyond that.

There are innocuous things you can do as a gun owner when buying a gun, without criminal intent, that can put you in "straw purchase eligibility land" in the eyes of BATFE.

-Mike




Seriously? You don't really understand the dangers of it, apparently, or you have way too much faith in the government to actually control itself in instances
where it would matter. I don't. Registration is still universally bad, any way you slice it.

-Mike

You make a lot of good points that I hadn't considered. I personally like the idea of being able to track a gun to it's source. If registration isn't a pill many would swallow, then perhaps the dealers could track their sales and law enforcement could track a gun used in a crime back to the dealer and then subpoena the info on a case by case basis and not in job lots. That way the info in only accessed when needed.

 

[drgrant]

You make a lot of good points that I hadn't considered. I personally like the idea of being able to track a gun to it's source.

I have mixed feelings about it because I think that if there was any centralized store
of information it could easily be abused by the government.

If registration isn't a pill many would swallow, then perhaps the dealers could track their sales and law enforcement could track a gun used in a crime back to the dealer and then subpoena the info on a case by case basis and not in job lots. That way the info in only accessed when needed.

Well, that's more or less the way the system is now. What you are asking for, already
exists. There is a form an LE agency fills out with BATFE, for official use only, that
is used for such tracing purposes. They can't go fishing, they have to state a
legit reason for BATFE to conduct a trace.

-Mike

 

[economist]

There was no twisting of the law here. This guy planed to sell guns on the streets to make a buck, and that's a crime. He should have had the book not only thrown at him, but inserted in some place painful. It's people like him that give the antis their legitimate ammunition.

Now that SCOTUS had cleared up that the second amendment is incorporated under the 14th. There isn't a good reason to fight gun registration. The NRA should now switch gears on the topic. It shows that we are not all loons and that these people supplying guns to criminals are "our" enemies too.

You make a lot of good points that I hadn't considered. I personally like the idea of being able to track a gun to it's source. If registration isn't a pill many would swallow, then perhaps the dealers could track their sales and law enforcement could track a gun used in a crime back to the dealer and then subpoena the info on a case by case basis and not in job lots. That way the info in only accessed when needed.

Take everything you said and replace "gun" with "knife". See how stupid that is? We shouldn't care how a criminal gets a tool. We should care that the criminal committed a violent crime.

 

[RichM]

Thanks, Mike. You're right... in this case, the guy was blatant, and there was a history of the law finding that guns that he purchased ended up being used in crimes.

I'm concerned about the potential for the Federal agencies to twist this law so thoroughly that any FTF sale could become criminal...

 

[Maj. Boom Boom]

Aww, he's such a caring person, selling guns to blind drug dealers, that I'm inclined just to give him a free pass on this one-- NOT.

I wonder what kind of sights were on the gun?

 

[twogunwilly]

Now that SCOTUS had cleared up that the second amendment is incorporated under the 14th. There isn't a good reason to fight gun registration.

Did you notice the margin of victory? 5-4 isn't exactly a home run. Registration leads to confiscation always has, always will.

 

[SeanT]

Another good reason for my policy of buying guns only and not selling them

 

[KBCraig]

If you read the relevant portions of the US code on the matter you will soon discover that what you THINK is a straw purchase, and what actually IS a straw purchase, in the eyes of the law,, are actually two different things. A lot of people think it's just "buying a gun for a known prohibited person" but it goes way, way beyond that.

True, lots of people get this one wrong.

It's not buying a gun for a prohibited person, it's buying a gun for any person while holding yourself to be the actual purchaser.

Example 1: You're at a gun show and find a great bargain. You call your buddy and tell him about it, and he promises to pay you back if you'll pick one up for him too. You do so; this is a straw purchase, even though your buddy is not a prohibited person in any way.

Example 2: You and your brother plan to go pick up a pair of guns that are on sale. He's unexpectedly called in to work, so he gives you the cash to get a gun for him. Again, he's not in any way a prohibited person, but this is still a straw purchase.

Example 3: You have a C&R FFL and order a "5-fer" deal (ahhh, remember the days?), hoping to get one or two really good specimens for your collection. You keep the two best, sell two others for the purpose of enhancing your collection, and keep the last one for possible future trades. This is not a straw purchase.

Example 4: You purchase a gun intending to surprise your grown daughter with it as a housewarming gift. This is not a straw purchase.

Keep in mind I'm only talking about federal law, not any state or local complications like FA-10s, registration, approved lists, blahblah.

 

[KBCraig]

Example 5: Your spouse asks for a particular gun. She is willing to pay (you keep separate accounts), but thinks you would have better luck striking a bargain with the dealer. You buy the gun and she repays you. Even though it would be legal to make this transaction as a bona fide gift, it very well could be argued as a straw purchase.

 

[larryh1108]

For a controversial discussion, what IF..... it can be proven that you sold your firearm illegally. This can be in a restricted state or a "free" state but as far as I know you cannot sell to a felon or for a straw purchase. Assume you live in a no-restriction state and your high school buddy, who just got out of prison, asks you to sell him one of your unused guns because he knows you like to collect them. He tells you it will be his night stand gun and he is rehabilitated. You decide to give him a break and sell him an old gun that was never registered to you from years gone by.

Let's say your buddy is clean for a few years but a cohort of his, from his bad days, shows up and before you know it he gives his old buddy this gun "to settle up an old debt". The original seller does not know this. Nothing is said to him.

Somehwere down the road the gun is used in a serious crime and it is discovered that you sold it to your buddy and it is proven you knew he was a felon. My question is: Would it be fair to charge the seller for the same crime because he sold it illegally? Let's say it's used in a homicide. Would it be fair to charge the seller with the same charge? Would this deter selling it "grey area" illegal? If you make the seller accountable then I feel it would deter a lot more of these sales... straw purchases, playing dumb to previous convictions, etc.

 

[drgrant]

For a controversial discussion, what IF..... it can be proven that you sold your firearm illegally. This can be in a restricted state or a "free" state but as far as I know you cannot sell to a felon or for a straw purchase. Assume you live in a no-restriction state and your high school buddy, who just got out of prison, asks you to sell him one of your unused guns because he knows you like to collect them. He tells you it will be his night stand gun and he is rehabilitated. You decide to give him a break and sell him an old gun that was never registered to you from years gone by.

Let's say your buddy is clean for a few years but a cohort of his, from his bad days, shows up and before you know it he gives his old buddy this gun "to settle up an old debt". The original seller does not know this. Nothing is said to him.

Somehwere down the road the gun is used in a serious crime and it is discovered that you sold it to your buddy and it is proven you knew he was a felon. My question is:

Would it be fair to charge the seller for the same crime because he sold it illegally? Let's say it's used in a homicide. Would it be fair to charge the seller with the same charge?

So you want to charge original the seller with MURDER/Manslaughter??? wtf? How is the seller responsible? He may have supplied the gun but he did not commit the violent act.

I'm also somewhat confused as to why you wrote a long, convoluted, tortured story, only to basically say that the person knowingly sold a gun to his ex con friend, which (may or may not be, depending on what he was convicted of) a prohibited person, which we've already discussed is a felony. There's nothing "special" about the scenario you've posited here, other than that you've inserted an extra degree of separation between the original seller and the 2nd prohibited person that touched the gun later on. That's not a game changer at all, really.

Would this deter selling it "grey area" illegal? If you make the seller accountable then I feel it would deter a lot more of these sales... straw purchases, playing dumb to previous convictions, etc.

Let's just apply this rule to everything that could be used to hurt someone.... Let's make it so you can't sell a car to someone, because they might drink and drive, and you know, kill someone with it.

I guess this is mind numbing to me how anyone could possibly think this was a good idea. We already have laws on the books making straw purchases a federal felony that carries a lifetime firearms ownership disqualifier for it, as well as making you incapable of legally voting, etc. The only way you could make it more harsh is to just add the death penalty to it. (In a way it already is a death penalty, because IMHO, prohibited persons basically aren't citizens anymore.... ).

-Mike

 

[Sibb]

Did you notice the margin of victory? 5-4 isn't exactly a home run. Registration leads to confiscation always has, always will.

The injunction the NRA filed against New Orleans made it clear that confiscation won't be tolerated, no?

 

[drgrant]

The injunction the NRA filed against New Orleans made it clear that confiscation won't be tolerated, no?

Is Eddie Compass in jail? No. Not good enough.

ETA: Sorry to be short, but basically, until government officials are held criminally liable for these sorts of things, the abuses will continue.

-Mike