Gun Maker Protection Bill Passes Preliminary Senate Vote

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-26 12:57am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
neoolong wrote:Since when did you need an assualt weapon for that?
What's the difference between a semi-auto AR-15 firing 5.56 for hunting and wooden furniture traditional 5.56 rifle for hunting? The answer: precisely nothing. But "assault weapons" include stuff like the former. Why? Why is a box magazine, a pistol grip, and plastic furniture makes a gun more dangerous, damned if I know.

Then the term needs to be redefined. My objection is only for certain weapons.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-26 01:00am

neoolong wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
neoolong wrote:Since when did you need an assualt weapon for that?
What's the difference between a semi-auto AR-15 firing 5.56 for hunting and wooden furniture traditional 5.56 rifle for hunting? The answer: precisely nothing. But "assault weapons" include stuff like the former. Why? Why is a box magazine, a pistol grip, and plastic furniture makes a gun more dangerous, damned if I know.
Then the term needs to be redefined. My objection is only for certain weapons.

Such as?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-26 01:04am

Full auto, I'm guessing. I wouldn't want to see people running around with an M-60.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-26 01:16am

Something like that. I'm sure it can be made more specific.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-26 01:29am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote:
BWHAHAHAHA! I guess then the G36 AR is a handgun! (barrel length 18.9in).

So is the M16, I kind of misspoke they generally say 20 inches or less to be sure of including it, the AK-47 is also a handgun by that definition, heck the only assault that isn't at or below the limit I can think of its the L85, and by only 10mm.

The Canadian version of the M16 (C7) has a barrel length of 510mm (20in=508mm).
Therefore, by their criteria:
C7=rifle
M16=handgun

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-02-26 02:35am

Rogue 9 wrote:Full auto, I'm guessing. I wouldn't want to see people running around with an M-60.

Full auto weapons have been tightly regulated since 1934.

The so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban' has nothing to do with any fully automatic weapon.

The death of the AWB won't change the regulatory status of machine guns one bit.

Atavarius · Post by **Atavarius** » 2004-02-26 07:39am

For those who prefer to learn by picture

:

The difference betwen these 2 rifles are:

A. Magazine Capacity
B. Caliber
C. Rate of Fire
D. Nothing except gun #1 is included in the AWB ban.

I think we know what the answer is.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-02-26 10:16am

Rogue 9 wrote:Full auto, I'm guessing. I wouldn't want to see people running around with an M-60.

If someone went to all the trouble of obtaining the neccesary licenses to own one, and has enough money to actually buy one, he's not going to be running around shooting people for fun with the damn thing. I'll put it this way. I'll trust a guy with a legal M-60 more than I'd trust you with a disposable plastic butter knife.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-02-26 10:38am

aerius wrote:If someone went to all the trouble of obtaining the neccesary licenses to own one, and has enough money to actually buy one, he's not going to be running around shooting people for fun with the damn thing. I'll put it this way. I'll trust a guy with a legal M-60 more than I'd trust you with a disposable plastic butter knife.

Using your dumbass logic, you would trust someone with a RPG over a guy with a plastic butter knife because the price to buy the RPG and the effort to get it licensed would be relatively high.

If the line dividing acceptable and non-acceptable firearms is at machine guns, then let's leave it where it is, ok? It's just not worth the risk.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-02-26 12:12pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Using your dumbass logic, you would trust someone with a RPG over a guy with a plastic butter knife because the price to buy the RPG and the effort to get it licensed would be relatively high.

If the line dividing acceptable and non-acceptable firearms is at machine guns, then let's leave it where it is, ok? It's just not worth the risk.

Actually, his logic goes that you have to SHOW a risk and not handwavium(tm), before banning something. Your chances of being gunned down in America with the oh-so evil assualt weapon is so small as to be ridiculous.

And it has little to do with the AWB and more to do with how ineffective said weapon would be in a crime that would put a person in the positon of being gunned down.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-02-26 12:23pm

Knife wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Using your dumbass logic, you would trust someone with a RPG over a guy with a plastic butter knife because the price to buy the RPG and the effort to get it licensed would be relatively high.

If the line dividing acceptable and non-acceptable firearms is at machine guns, then let's leave it where it is, ok? It's just not worth the risk.
Actually, his logic goes that you have to SHOW a risk and not handwavium(tm), before banning something. Your chances of being gunned down in America with the oh-so evil assualt weapon is so small as to be ridiculous.

He was talking about machine guns. He was also saying he'd trust a guy with a machine gun more then a guy with a plastic butter knife, just because it's dearer and harder to license then your average gun.

And it has little to do with the AWB and more to do with how ineffective said weapon would be in a crime that would put a person in the positon of being gunned down.

And once again, I could apply this type of thinking to an RPG. Do you want to draw a line somewhere, or do you want a free for all?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-02-26 12:29pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Knife wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Using your dumbass logic, you would trust someone with a RPG over a guy with a plastic butter knife because the price to buy the RPG and the effort to get it licensed would be relatively high.

If the line dividing acceptable and non-acceptable firearms is at machine guns, then let's leave it where it is, ok? It's just not worth the risk.
Actually, his logic goes that you have to SHOW a risk and not handwavium(tm), before banning something. Your chances of being gunned down in America with the oh-so evil assualt weapon is so small as to be ridiculous.
He was talking about machine guns. He was also saying he'd trust a guy with a machine gun more then a guy with a plastic butter knife, just because it's dearer and harder to license then your average gun.

And it has little to do with the AWB and more to do with how ineffective said weapon would be in a crime that would put a person in the positon of being gunned down.
And once again, I could apply this type of thinking to an RPG. Do you want to draw a line somewhere, or do you want a free for all?

No offense, but if the guy's gone through all of the Federal bullshit necessary to legally own an RPG, I'd trust him before I trusted a stranger that I'm chatting with over the internet.

Now if you're talking about an illegally owned RPG, the trust factor would be reversed.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-02-26 12:40pm

BoredShirtless wrote: He was talking about machine guns. He was also saying he'd trust a guy with a machine gun more then a guy with a plastic butter knife, just because it's dearer and harder to license then your average gun.

And I'll say again, that fact that in America the chance of you getting gunned down by a 'machine gun' is so remote as to be laughable.

The guy who jumps through various hoops and pays out a shit load of money so he can own a fully automatic weapon is hardly going to be a guy who then turns it on a 7/11 to steal $50.

And once again, I could apply this type of thinking to an RPG. Do you want to draw a line somewhere, or do you want a free for all?

And I'd be right there with you as soon as we see a rash of violent RPG collectors turning their show pieces on rush hour traffic in LA.

Now to be honest, I really don't want unrestricted sales of MK 19's and M136's to the general public. But the debate is really about cosmetic criteria to weapons. The AWB bans weapons for appearence and not for any real saftey issue. The restrictions of fully automatic weapons are some what dumb depending on the exact weapon you're talking about.

But even still, the idea that some one who does go through all the bullshit red tape and pays the money for a licience to own a collector's piece, like for example a Thompson SMG, is hardly a threat to society and I would trust him more than the average joe with a blunt object. The collector has shown that he is willing to cooperate with goverment regulations to own what he wants while any average idiot can pick up a blunt object.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-26 12:44pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
aerius wrote:If someone went to all the trouble of obtaining the neccesary licenses to own one, and has enough money to actually buy one, he's not going to be running around shooting people for fun with the damn thing. I'll put it this way. I'll trust a guy with a legal M-60 more than I'd trust you with a disposable plastic butter knife.

Using your dumbass logic, you would trust someone with a RPG over a guy with a plastic butter knife because the price to buy the RPG and the effort to get it licensed would be relatively high.

If the line dividing acceptable and non-acceptable firearms is at machine guns, then let's leave it where it is, ok? It's just not worth the risk.

they do these little things called background checks before they even let you purchase a handgun. someone going through the trouble of getting a machine gun legally is likely to have a damned near spotless record, and in good standing with the law. they're also likely to have a high paying, respectable career, and not willing to jeopardize it by doing anything wreckless with their purchase.

you can't forbid someone to have a weapon just because they -might- do something bad with it. that's idiotic. if they have all the necessary credentials, their background comes up clean and they can afford it, then why the fuck shouldn't they be allowed to have it?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-02-26 01:08pm

Knife wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: He was talking about machine guns. He was also saying he'd trust a guy with a machine gun more then a guy with a plastic butter knife, just because it's dearer and harder to license then your average gun.
And I'll say again, that fact that in America the chance of you getting gunned down by a 'machine gun' is so remote as to be laughable.

Isn't that because they're illegal? Is it such a leap to conclude that if you legalise machine guns, more people would own them? Which means the chances of becoming some sort of victim would increase?

The guy who jumps through various hoops and pays out a shit load of money so he can own a fully automatic weapon is hardly going to be a guy who then turns it on a 7/11 to steal $50.

Right. But what if it's stolen, then used in a crime? I trust the Australian military with machine guns, because it's next to impossible for their weapons to be stolen. Same can't be said for your average citizen.

And once again, I could apply this type of thinking to an RPG. Do you want to draw a line somewhere, or do you want a free for all?
And I'd be right there with you as soon as we see a rash of violent RPG collectors turning their show pieces on rush hour traffic in LA.

Is it legal to own a functioning RPG?

Now to be honest, I really don't want unrestricted sales of MK 19's and M136's to the general public.

Ok, so we're drawing the line at the same place.

But even still, the idea that some one who does go through all the bullshit red tape and pays the money for a licience to own a collector's piece, like for example a Thompson SMG, is hardly a threat to society and I would trust him more than the average joe with a blunt object. The collector has shown that he is willing to cooperate with goverment regulations to own what he wants while any average idiot can pick up a blunt object.

Getting a license to collect is another thing. I was thinking about license to own and operate, to carry, that sort of thing.

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2004-02-26 04:49pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Knife wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: He was talking about machine guns. He was also saying he'd trust a guy with a machine gun more then a guy with a plastic butter knife, just because it's dearer and harder to license then your average gun.
And I'll say again, that fact that in America the chance of you getting gunned down by a 'machine gun' is so remote as to be laughable.
Isn't that because they're illegal? Is it such a leap to conclude that if you legalise machine guns, more people would own them? Which means the chances of becoming some sort of victim would increase?

Seeing as Shep isn't here...

AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE NOT ILLEGAL!

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-26 04:52pm

i'd also like to point out that it's far more probable you'd be wounded by a crazy wielding a shotgun or a rifle that you can buy at any sporting goods store as opposed to someone wielding a fully automatic machine gun. there are no background checks for shotguns, after all.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-02-26 05:13pm

Darth_Zod wrote:i'd also like to point out that it's far more probable you'd be wounded by a crazy wielding a shotgun or a rifle that you can buy at any sporting goods store as opposed to someone wielding a fully automatic machine gun. there are no background checks for shotguns, after all.

Not true.

Under federal law, if you buy any firearm at retail, you have to pass the NICS (FBI -run database) system.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-26 05:14pm

hrrm. maybe i was thinking of waiting times as opposed to background check.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-26 05:55pm

BoredShirtless wrote:

Using your dumbass logic, you would trust someone with a RPG over a guy with a plastic butter knife because the price to buy the RPG and the effort to get it licensed would be relatively high.

If the line dividing acceptable and non-acceptable firearms is at machine guns, then let's leave it where it is, ok? It's just not worth the risk.

And you're an f-in moron.

Try to obtain a MG by not stealing it, then buying enough ammo to fire it more than 10 seconds, and not spending more than you'll make in almost any armed robbery.

His logic is perfectly reasonable. It's saying that automatic weapons are so expensive to obtain, maintain, and fire, that most criminals can't feasably put them to good use. Those that can will get them anyways through sources such as the Mafia and black markets.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-02-26 07:33pm

Isn't that because they're illegal? Is it such a leap to conclude that if you legalise machine guns, more people would own them? Which means the chances of becoming some sort of victim would increase?

False. Prior to the restrictions imposed on machine guns, only 1 case of anyone using a machine gun in a crime was on the books.

Automatic weapons make up an infinitesimal amount of gun-related deaths. Contrary to what your tapioca brain has been taught, there AREN'T homing devices in the tip of every bullet that automatically seek out targets when you spray a clip into a crowded room. Clearly, your entire stock of knowledge about guns and gun usage has come from such brilliant and accurate documentaries such as Rambo, Lethal Weapon, and Tango & Cash. Full-auto is woefully inaccurate.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-02-26 08:50pm

From the Charleston Daily Mail (WV) Thurs. Feb 26, 2004

The trading game
Toby Coleman
Daily Mail staff

It was a warm July evening in 2000 when James Gray and Tammi Songer walked into Will Jewelry & Loan in South Charleston. As the air conditioning hummed above them, Gray began pointing out 9 mm and .40-caliber firearms he wanted to take back to New Jersey. By the time he finished, the clerk had pulled a dozen handguns from the store's glass handgun case. At the counter, Songer filled out the necessary paperwork. When the clerk asked her why she was buying around $4,000 worth of pistols, she remembers laughing. "I told the clerk I was opening a shooting range," she said.

It was a lie. Songer was, and is, so scared of guns that she won't buy them for herself. She was so addled by drugs that she had a hard time paying her bills. She was really buying them for Gray, a three-time felon forever barred from owning a gun. The guns purchased that evening quickly fed into an underground trading route that brings drugs into West Virginia and sends handguns to New York City, Washington, D.C. and Detroit. Less than six months later, a three-time felon named Shuntez Everett used one of those guns to shoot two police officers in the New York City suburb of Orange, N.J.

The officers, David Lemongello and Kenneth McGuire, blame the gun industry for their shooting. Last year, they filed a lawsuit in Kanawha Circuit Court seeking monetary damages from Will Jewelry and Sturm, Ruger & Co., the company that made Everett's gun.

In recent years, such lawsuits have provoked a firestorm of controversy. Gun manufacturers say they are politically motivated suits pushed by gun control advocates who want to further restrict America's access to guns. "It's really an awful abuse of the judicial system," said Gary Mehalik of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry's trade association.

In response, Congress is considering a bill that would give gun dealers and manufacturers immunity from most lawsuits. The House passed the measure last year, and the Senate appears poised to do it this week. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has said he is "leaning towards" supporting the legislation because he believes "gun sellers and distributors should only be held responsible for their own actions, not for the wrongdoing of criminals down the stream of commerce."

If it passes, it would mean the end for a number of lawsuits seeking to make the gun industry pay for allegedly feeding the black market. Gun control advocates hoped lawsuits like the one filed by Lemongello and McGuire in Charleston would scare the industry into adopting more restrictive sales policies that would make it harder for gun traffickers to operate. "If this immunity bill gets passed, what's going to hold gun dealers back from just selling guns to anybody?" Lemongello said. "What's going to stop them from selling 12 guns or 112 guns?"

A Straw Buyer

On July 3, 2000, a 31-year-old insurance claims examiner and cab driver named Tammi Songer bought her first gun. She didn't have the Taurus PT-140 .40-caliber pistol for long. Within minutes of the buy, she traded it to Gray, a 28-year-old cocaine dealer from New Jersey, for $100, cocaine and marijuana. With that, she became a straw buyer, one of the most vital parts of a criminal pipeline bringing illegal drugs into West Virginia and sending handguns to urban America.

Traffickers from Detroit, New York City and Washington, D.C., come to West Virginia to buy guns because there's no limit to how many guns people can purchase, except in Charleston. Once they get here, though, they need help. Federal gun laws prohibit criminals from buying guns and bar dealers from selling handguns to people from another state. So traffickers scour the Mountain State's hills and hollows for someone without a criminal record willing to buy them guns.

Gray found Songer in a C & H Taxi Co. cab in June 2000. In a December deposition, Songer said it was an uneventful meeting. But the ride from his Kanawha City hotel to a downtown Charleston nightclub was long enough for him to learn her cab number. A couple of days later, Gray called on her to drive him around. Songer said that when he found out she smoked marijuana, he gave her pot. By their third meeting, she said, he was giving her cocaine and asking her to buy him a gun.

Songer agreed. "I think what attracted me to him, he looked like the rap singer Nelly," she said in a deposition last December. It also helped that he offered to give her money and drugs to do it. At the time, she said, drugs were the center of her life. She said she even used cocaine on her lunch breaks from her day job at the insurance company.

When she bought her first gun at Will Jewelry for Gray, she said she "kind of" suspected she was getting involved with a criminal enterprise. "But I was so strung out on drugs I didn't care," she said. So when he called her a couple of weeks later and told her he wanted to buy more guns, she agreed. She said she wanted more money for drugs.

She drove him out to Will Jewelry, a busy shop in the Spring Hill section of South Charleston that has a pink "We Will Not Be Undersold" sign in front of its handgun counter. Once inside, Songer says she stood next to the cash register while Gray told the clerk which guns Songer would buy. Since Songer didn't know anything about guns, her primary purpose was to fill out the purchase forms required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and pay the clerk in cash. According to Songer, Gray even carried the guns out of the store.

Lawyers for the former New Jersey police officers say it was such an obvious straw purchase that Will Jewelry's clerk should have refused the sale.

"Sturm Ruger should send the videotape of the transaction out to all of its dealers as an example of what not to do," said Scott Segal, one of the lawyers suing the gun industry on behalf of the former police officers. He says the shop should have followed the guidelines recommended by the gun industry's "Don't Lie For the Other Guy" program. The program advises clerks to "follow the precautionary principle of politely refusing the sale" when they suspect a potential customer is a straw buyer. "It's not just good business," the program's Web site says. "It's your responsibility."

Will Jewelry, though, says its clerk, who it refuses to identify, did all he could to prevent an illegal purchase. According to Will Jewelry lawyer Clem Trischler, the clerk did a background check on Songer, who had done business with the pawnshop before. Since the shop knew Songer and her record came back clean, the clerk decided to go ahead with the sale. But when suspicions remained in the clerk's mind after Gray and Songer walked out the door, the clerk called the ATF -- something federal officials say helped speed Gray's capture. "It's a textbook case of what should be done and a textbook example of a good corporate citizen," Trischler said.

A killer export

After Gray left Will Jewelry, he left Charleston and returned to New Jersey. There, restrictive firearms laws have pushed the street value of handguns to five or six times the normal retail price, according to Charleston ATF agents. When he returned about 10 days later, he probably brought cocaine with him, according to federal prosecutors and ATF agents familiar with his case. Many gun traffickers do because, according to federal statistics, illegal drugs like cocaine are worth far more in Charleston than in New York City.

By then, Songer was cooperating with the ATF. When she and Gray walked into Will Jewelry on July 31, 2000 to buy nine more guns, the ATF arrested him. He is now serving a 15-year-sentence in a federal prison in Texas for gun trafficking and aiding and abetting a straw purchaser. Songer, who has since married and become Songer-Ganiyu, spent 18 months in federal prison for lying on an ATF firearms form.

Though Gray was in prison, his trafficked guns were still floating around. By August 3, 2000, police in Orange, N.J., had confiscated one in the waistband of a 32-year-old man arrested for threatening someone in a bar.

Guns like those are one of West Virginia's worst exports. These so-called "crime guns" end up in urban areas with heavy gun control, including New York City, Detroit and Washington, D.C. In 2001 alone, 641 guns from the Mountain State were confiscated by law enforcement outside of the state because they were involved in a crime, according to the ATF.

The most infamous crime gun from that year may be the handgun Shuntez Everett used to shoot the two Orange, N.J., police officers on Jan. 12, 2001. It was a Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic, serial No. 313-07198.

According to the Orange, N.J., police, the 24-year-old Everett had the gun in his pocket when Officer Dave Lemongello stopped him on the street to question him about his suspicious behavior around a frequently robbed gas station. "I identified myself as a police officer and asked him could he take his hand out of his pockets," Lemongello said in a recent telephone interview. "That's when he shot me three times. It was that quick. He shot me without me even getting my gun out of my holster." As Everett fled, Lemongello put out an emergency call. Officer Kenneth McGuire, then stationed about a mile away, began searching for the shooter.

When he found Everett hiding in the bushes of a nearby home, McGuire asked Everett to show his hands. Everett pulled out his gun again and pulled the trigger until his gun was empty. At least two of bullets from Everett's gun ripped into McGuire's stomach and right leg, knocking him to the ground. McGuire fired back, killing Everett.

Since then, both men have left the police force. They say they were traumatized by the shooting, and are still nursing physical and emotional scars. Both say Will Jewelry is at least partially responsible for their shootings. "This gun would never have made it to Jersey if it weren't for the gun dealer from West Virginia selling 12 handguns," said Lemongello, who now does corporate security for cosmetics giant Estee Lauder in New York. "It just takes common sense to realize they would end up in the streets."

A day in court?

Now, the former police officers are hoping for their day in court. If they ever get there, their lawyers plan to argue that Will Jewelry and Sturm Ruger helped cause the shooting because they didn't take enough steps to stop straw purchases.
"It was foreseeable that if they engaged in these sort of irresponsible business practices that criminals would get guns and these two police officers would get shot," said Jonathan Lowy, an attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Gun Violence.

Right now, the chances of their case ever getting to a jury are slim. A major obstacle: a Senate bill that would essentially dismiss a number of lawsuits against gun dealers and gun manufacturers, including the one filed by McGuire and Lemongello.

Many in the Senate support the provision. "There is no question that this was a terrible tragedy for the New Jersey officers who were assaulted," Rockefeller said. "The Senate liability bill makes clear that gun sellers and distributors would be held responsible if they knowingly violate gun laws. However, under this bill, these sellers and distributors would not be held accountable for the actions of criminals down the stream of commerce." Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Wednesday that he had not decided how he would vote on the bill.

The gun industry is pushing the bill hard. Since local governments began suing gun manufacturers over crime guns in the 1990s, the gun industry has spent more than $120 million defending itself, according to industry observers. Mehalik, of the National Sports Shooting Foundation, said the legislation will protect the gun makers from frivolous lawsuits filed by gun control advocates trying to use "the crushing power of the judiciary" to bankrupt them.

According to Mehalik and other gun advocates, lawsuits like the one filed by Lemongello and McGuire are meritless because they seek to hold gun dealers and manufacturers responsible for others' criminal acts. "It's like not bothering to learn how to drive, driving a car, getting into an accident, and then suing Ford or General Motors or something," Mehalik said.

But some judges -- including Kanawha Circuit Judge Irene Berger, the one hearing the lawsuit filed by Lemongello and McGuire -- have allowed the plaintiffs in these cases to begin taking depositions and issuing subpoenas. In those cases, the question has become: Did gun makers and gun dealers turn a blind eye as they supplied guns to criminals? In the case of Will Jewelry, that question is still being debated. But one thing is for sure. West Virginia is still a source state for crime guns.

And as long as it has towns where there's no limit to the number of guns one person can buy, West Virginia will probably remain a crime gun exporter, according to federal prosecutors and ATF agents.

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-02-27 12:54am

"If this immunity bill gets passed, what's going to hold gun dealers back from just selling guns to anybody?" Lemongello said. "What's going to stop them from selling 12 guns or 112 guns?"

Very telling, in my opinion. It sounds like he doesn't want anybody to have a gun. And the obvious answer to his question, is the instant background check that buyers must go through before they purchase a gun. Unfortunately, criminals bent on breaking the law, will obtain guns, as evidenced by the "straw buy." But when people say that it is obvious when a purchase is a straw buy, I would disagree.

What if a gun dealer refuses to sell a gun to a middle eastern man, who passes the background check, because he thinks he's a terrorist?

What if an African-American couple go in together, and the gun dealer refuses to sell a handgun to the woman?

It's like with alcohol, and kids playing the game of "hey mister." Show them your ID, and it's yours. But if you're buying it for someone else, that's all on you. Not the person who sold it to you.

BTW, Nathan, does your gun club have a URL yet?