View Full Version : ATF's case: gun buyer looked Hispanic
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 they 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.
The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the “Texas Gunshow” that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.
Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.
“Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling,” commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, “who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?” He also said, “What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens.”
Velte pointed out that “There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish.”
Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:
• Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?
• Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
• Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?
• What has he been promised for his cooperation?
• Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
• Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?
Contact: Paul Velte, 512-296-5563
Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights
website: http://www.io.com/~velte/pt.htm
Belmont31R
09-03-10, 11:07
That ATF agents name is familiar....
Anyways I was just about to post this, too.
Yes, this really sucks and, as I am sure Belmont knows as well, was the subject of much discussion in the political forum at http://www.texaschlforum.com/ when he was first arrested. There is now a new thread similar to this one.
Edited to add that Charles Cotton, site administrator of Texas CHL Forum, is also an attorney and a Director of the NRA.
He was convicted by a Texas jury? I can hardly believe a jury would concur unanimously given the facts as set forth in the article. Something doesn't seem right here. WTF???
MarshallDodge
09-03-10, 11:39
Race doesn't matter when you are the ATF. :rolleyes:
If I sell a firearm to someone I don't know, I have them sign a piece of paper stating among other things that they are "legally able to own a firearm." This puts the responsibility back on their shoulders.
This is egregious!:confused:
Anyone else feel like they are being held hostage in their own country?
I sure do; more and more every day...
That's it. I'm going to run for President in 2032. If no one else is going to put an end to this, then I will. And when I get elected, I am going to completely and utterly clean house without mercy, starting with these guys.
I'm not joking.
Absolutely insane.
That jury needs some proper "re-education".
I won't even start on what the ATF needs.
He was convicted by a Texas jury? I can hardly believe a jury would concur unanimously given the facts as set forth in the article. Something doesn't seem right here. WTF???
Judging by the title of the Judge, it was a Federal case. Also, if it went down in Austin, that is practically a refuge for Liberals from California. It is a Sanctuary City after all.
Judging by the title of the Judge, it was a Federal case. Also, if it went down in Austin, that is practically a refuge for Liberals from California. It is a Sanctuary City after all.
To put some perspective on Alric's comments above, when gay marriage was on the Statewide ballot, every county in Texas voted it down except Travis County (Austin). And yes, our city council voted to make Austin a sanctuary city.
Thank goodness our Texas Constitution, Article I, Sec. 23 says: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." Otherwise Austin would surely bans all guns.
John_Wayne777
09-03-10, 12:26
He was convicted by a Texas jury? I can hardly believe a jury would concur unanimously given the facts as set forth in the article.
That's more than likely where the problem is. I don't know all the facts in this case as I don't remember hearing about it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps this article (which, let's be frank, is written in a manner that is entirely sympathetic to the convicted) does not include an exhaustive account of the evidence presented by the state in this case.
I'm by no means president of the BATFE's fan club, but I sincerely doubt that they threw federal charges at a dude because he sold a gun to a guy that looked mexican.
I sincerely doubt that they threw federal charges at a dude because he sold a gun to a guy that looked mexican.
I disagree. They (the ATF) has already been caught drag-netting FFL's for 4473's and then cataloguing every purchase by buyers, then visiting those buyers and giving them thinly-veiled threats for face-to-face purchases.
It seems to me they're just trying to make an example of this guy. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole purchase was a set-up.
CarlosDJackal
09-03-10, 13:23
Again, why doesn't this surprise me in the least? This is why I don't sell guns anymore. Or if I ever do, I will need someone I trust to vouch for the buyer.
This is absolutly rediculous... and of all places... Texas!?
Was this jury made up of 11 illegal Mexicans and 1 Native born Texan?
I want to move out of NJ and to Texas, Austin being the prime candidate. Looks like I will have to re-think that.
TX is a good choice, but Austin is not.
Heavy Metal
09-03-10, 13:38
Like JW777, I get the feeling something is being left out.
Why does the phrase "Dealing without a liscense" keep popping in my head?
Like JW777, I get the feeling something is being left out.
Indeed, something doesn't seem right with this. I tried to look up what our local daily wrote about it and when I searched on the name Paul Copeland on the web site I didn't get any meaningful returns.
Then when I Googled the name all I find are blogs and forums posting the same as information as in the OP. No mainstream news reports at all, at least that I could find.
I also Googled the term "United States of America v. Paul Copeland" and got no meaningful returns except for the press release by Paul Velte, which is in the OP.
Belmont31R
09-03-10, 17:25
BTW I mentioned this agent was familiar, and he was the lead guy who stopped by my house.
We talked for a few minutes about FTF sales, and I had told him I didn't keep any paperwork for FTF sales because Im not required to do so by law. Interesting that this same agent basically busted this guy for selling to an illegal when the guy didn't know he was an illegal, and had a DL. He told me I should do a "bill of sale" with signatures, DL info, ect.
I have the paper where this Kang guy wrote his info on a piece of yellow legal paper for me since he didn't have a card.
I think that you should find a way to report what happened to you. Though it all ended well who knows......
There may be something missing from this story, but I am not a big believer in "conicidence".
BTW I mentioned this agent was familiar, and he was the lead guy who stopped by my house.
We talked for a few minutes about FTF sales, and I had told him I didn't keep any paperwork for FTF sales because Im not required to do so by law. Interesting that this same agent basically busted this guy for selling to an illegal when the guy didn't know he was an illegal, and had a DL. He told me I should do a "bill of sale" with signatures, DL info, ect.
I have the paper where this Kang guy wrote his info on a piece of yellow legal paper for me since he didn't have a card.
Belmont31R
09-03-10, 19:40
I think that you should find a way to report what happened to you. Though it all ended well who knows......
There may be something missing from this story, but I am not a big believer in "conicidence".
I sent both my Senator and House Rep a 3 page letter about what happened, and havent heard back from either. They are both R's, and my Rep is a hunter who has a pic with him holding a gun on official publications. I live just outside Austin but in a different county, and we are firmly "conservative" here.
Havent heard back from either, though.
Just goes to show how if they want you in court they will make up rules as they go along. This same fellow tells me to take DL info when making a FTF sales but this guy, apparently, got sent to court because he should have known the guy was illegal just based on his looks, language, and attire.
Also funny the few times Ive crossed the international border Ive gotten asked if I was a US citizen, and Im pale white, blonde hair, and blue eyes. Yet this guy appears to have been convicted because he should have just known the guy was illegal even presented with a valid TX DL.
I think its safe to say the Federal government is not here to enact justice but have become somewhat vindictive in their application of the law, and apply it selectively as they go along. Tell one person something they should be doing, and convict another person for doing what they told the 1st person to do.
I also tried to look this "case" up, and 99% of the hits were this same "article". Not on any of the local stations as far as I can tell. I almost hope its just BS...
GermanSynergy
09-03-10, 20:44
I'm hoping there is more to this case than what is being reported in the article. If not, was this man supposed to racially profile prospective purchasers? What kind of prescedent is that setting? :confused:
Belmont31R
09-03-10, 20:49
I'm hoping there is more to this case than what is being reported in the article. If not, was this man supposed to racially profile prospective purchasers? What kind of prescedent is that setting? :confused:
They simply make up rules/law as they go along depending on who it is they want in jail.
This same ATF Agent Kang tells me to do a bill of sale and record the persons DL info, and here he is in a case convicting someone of a felony because they sold a gun to a person with an apparent valid DL.
Of course Id like more info on THIS case, too.
Heavy Metal
09-03-10, 20:50
https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:casualty-of-the-austin-gun-show-chaos&catid=55:tripp-talk&Itemid=113
There IS more to the story.
Casualty of the Austin Gun Show Chaos
Written by Alice Tripp
Saturday, 24 July 2010 14:50
Last January 2010 the internet went viral with rumors centered around a gun show held in Austin, Texas. TSRA was on top of the situation within two hours and reported to members that the gun show promoter, Darwin Boedeker, had met with BATF agents, Austin PD from the nuisance unit, and building owners and had agreed to not allow private sales at this gun show.
TSRA was forwarded the email notice Mr. Boedeker put out to his vendors after that meeting. Charles Cotton, TSRA's executive director and I spoke with Mr. Boedeker on speaker phone. The call was on Friday before the Saturday/Sunday gun show. There would be no private sales without a background check as per Mr. Boekeker's agreement.
On Saturday Gun Show attendees were met at the door with a handbill giving the same information, anyone without an FFL wanting to sell or trade a firearm must do so through an FFL. Vendors and attendees were angry, as you can imagine.
C.B. Copeland usually had a table at this show, he did not have an FFL and only bought and sold a few handguns from his collection and other gun-related stuff. Mr. Copeland admits he knew this gun show was under close scrutiny.
On Saturday three young Hispanic men came by Mr. Copeland's table and asked about a handgun. One wanted to make a purchase and Mr. Copeland asked him if he had identification. The intended purchaser did not, although one in the group produced a Texas driver's license. The three moved on.
Three times the three young man came by the table and on the third pass, the young man with the driver's license, produced the cash, and bought the handgun. Evidently the gun was passed off, almost immediately, inside or outside the building, to another of the three. This man, not only had no identification, he was an illegal alien.
The three were arrested and officers came to Mr. Copeland's table and confiscated his firearm. I received a text message and then a cell phone call from a TSRA member standing at the table as it happened.
Mr. Copeland was not "taken away", only the firearms on his table for sale. When we talked with him on the phone and asked him why he broke the "rules" of the show, he said, "By golly, it's my constitutional right."
Since January we heard from Mr. Copeland once, complaining he couldn't get BATF to release his merchandise.
Last week we heard from him again. C.B. Copeland will be sentenced next week likely to a term in a federal prison. He tells us it wasn't because he was selling without an FFL, that wasn't mentioned during the trial. He says he was convicted by a "jury of his peers", his words, for knowingly participating in a straw-purchase; that is, knowingly selling to a person not illegible under state and federal law to purchase or possess a firearm.
Mr. Copeland had legal counsel and did not complain about the quality of his representation. He was shocked the jury didn't believe that he sold the gun to the person with the driver's license and didn't know the gun would be handed off to the illegal.
He expects to appeal his conviction.
As for the Austin gun show, Darwin Boedeker lost the use of the Sam's Club building he was renting but before the next scheduled gun show had found and rented an old Target building and never missed a show. The gun show went back to "business as usual" with no special requirements on sellers.
He was convicted of knowingly facilitating a 'straw purchase'.
Belmont31R
09-03-10, 20:56
on the third pass, the young man with the driver's license, produced the cash, and bought the handgun
Whats wrong with that.
Even a FTF sale you do not have to show an ID.
Its not even illegal to buy a gun for someone else as long as you are not doing it because they are a prohibited person. For instance I could go buy my wife a gun, gift it to her, and its legal. A straw purchase is when you buy a gun for someone because they cannot purchase it legally themselves. Now for this to be "dealing/facilitating" a straw purchase the seller would have to know, or have reason to believe the "end user" was a prohibited person.
Even this article doesn't get down to the root of this.
Maybe I should call Kang and ask him? lol
C.B. Copeland?? No wonder I couldn't find anything. The "press release" that is floating around all the blogs and forums, including the original post here had his name as Paul. How the heck you get Paul out of C.B. I don't know, but I thank Heavy for finding the real story for us.
If this is the true account that I agree. He knew something wasn't right and the one who initially asked did not have I.D. Then he sells to another guy in the group. That should have set off alarm bells.
The one thing that bothers me (if true) is that those who were involved in the purchase have not yet been prosecuted. If any of them are truly "illegal" as claimed the fact that they are out and about is of concern as well.
Being stupid isn't against the law, but in this case the smart thing would have been to decline the sale.
I'd like for some of our other legal eagles to chime in.
https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:casualty-of-the-austin-gun-show-chaos&catid=55:tripp-talk&Itemid=113
There IS more to the story.
He was convicted of knowingly facilitating a 'straw purchase'.
You are right. But, there is one in the group who asked and did not have I.D. that is the seller's prerogative to ask. IMHO he wasn't very smart in selling it to anyone in that group.
I am not a lawyer. But, there may well be grounds for an appeal.
Whats wrong with that.
Even a FTF sale you do not have to show an ID.
Its not even illegal to buy a gun for someone else as long as you are not doing it because they are a prohibited person. For instance I could go buy my wife a gun, gift it to her, and its legal. A straw purchase is when you buy a gun for someone because they cannot purchase it legally themselves. Now for this to be "dealing/facilitating" a straw purchase the seller would have to know, or have reason to believe the "end user" was a prohibited person.
Even this article doesn't get down to the root of this.
Maybe I should call Kang and ask him? lol
Belmont31R
09-03-10, 21:08
You are right. But, there is one in the group who asked and did not have I.D. that is the seller's prerogative to ask. IMHO he wasn't very smart in selling it to anyone in that group.
I am not a lawyer. But, there may well be grounds for an appeal.
Not smart but not illegal according to the letter of the law.
The prosecution may be able to convince a jury of Autinites it was "wrong" and thus "guilty" but doesnt mean he violated the letter of the law.
"Reason to believe" is VERY open to interpretation.
The more I think about it, you're correct. I wouldn't have done it but whether it was truly criminal is a different story. I wonder if the SAF, GOA or NRA is aware or offered any assistance.
Especially in light of the fact that the NRA was touting the legality of gun shows and exposing the falsities of the "gun show loop hole".
Not smart but not illegal according to the letter of the law.
The prosecution may be able to convince a jury of Autinites it was "wrong" and thus "guilty" but doesnt mean he violated the letter of the law.
"Reason to believe" is VERY open to interpretation.
Belmont31R
09-03-10, 21:21
The more I think about it, you're correct. I wouldn't have done it but whether it was truly criminal is a different story. I wonder if the SAF, GOA or NRA is aware or offered any assistance.
Especially in light of the fact that the NRA was touting the legality of gun shows and exposing the falsities of the "gun show loop hole".
Say you take your son/daughter/wife into a gun store, and say you are going to buy them a gun for XYZ reason (birthday, graduation, anniversary, ect).....it would all seem kosher no?
Then get a group of 3 Hispanics, go to a gun show, and one of them wants to buy a gun for one of the other ones.
In reality you have 2 different presentations but the same outcome. One person buying a gun for another. Without any outside information, logically, can you really conclude one is a straw buyer and one is a gift (legal)?
In my eyes we are all supposed to be treated equally under the law, and you can't really morally discriminate against the Hispanics just because they are Hispanics. Speaking Spanish? So what? Go to a county health clinic in a border state, and half the shit in there is in Spanish. Does that mean they are an illegal? I served right next to people in the Army for whom their primary language was Spanish.
Just reverse the situation, and the 3 Hispanics are legal residents/citizens. One guy is the boss, and buying a gun for his worker for doing a good job. The white guy buying a gun is buying it for a his felon son who just got out of prison for a couple robberies but told the clerk his son was graduating. You can't "reasonably" discern the true intentions of a purchaser just by a face to face meeting unless they outwardly tell you what their illegal intentions are (if they do).
I have heard about a "Project Gunrunner" in the ATF through which they are trying to find all the people allegedly smuggling 87% of the illegal guns into Mexico. :rolleyes: A local dealer here was questioned by the ATF about customers who purchased more than one of a particular firearm. "Why would he want more than one Blaser rifle (at $4500 ea. with decent wood)? Isn't that suspicious?" So I am wondering if there pressure from Zero and the gang to produce results, so they have to bust someone.
Belmont31R
09-03-10, 21:35
I have heard about a "Project Gunrunner" in the ATF through which they are trying to find all the people allegedly smuggling 87% of the illegal guns into Mexico. :rolleyes: A local dealer here was questioned by the ATF about customers who purchased more than one of a particular firearm. "Why would he want more than one Blaser rifle (at $4500 ea. with decent wood)? Isn't that suspicious?" So I am wondering if there pressure from Zero and the gang to produce results, so they have to bust someone.
Yes this same Agent Kang came to my house after compiling a list of repeat customers at local FFL's.
I was sure to thank my libtard MIL for the visit seeing this is an Obama move after all.
Google Project Gunrunner, and you get all kinds of hits like this, and what happened to me. If you live in a border state, and buy a lot of the same type of guns they will compile a file on you.
You are right. But, one can reasonably explain that it is a gift for a relative which is in fact legal.
We all know the profiling occurs, no matter what anyone says. What I find interesting is that "liberals are generally the ones against profiling yet in this case it would seem as if a "profile" was used as a determining factor and the jury was fine with it.
Apparently the .GOV had no issue with it either. I agree that you cannot reasonably make a determination or know what someone's intentions are, but in this case I believe that there were some wanring signs.
Say you take your son/daughter/wife into a gun store, and say you are going to buy them a gun for XYZ reason (birthday, graduation, anniversary, ect).....it would all seem kosher no?
Then get a group of 3 Hispanics, go to a gun show, and one of them wants to buy a gun for one of the other ones.
In reality you have 2 different presentations but the same outcome. One person buying a gun for another. Without any outside information, logically, can you really conclude one is a straw buyer and one is a gift (legal)?
In my eyes we are all supposed to be treated equally under the law, and you can't really morally discriminate against the Hispanics just because they are Hispanics. Speaking Spanish? So what? Go to a county health clinic in a border state, and half the shit in there is in Spanish. Does that mean they are an illegal? I served right next to people in the Army for whom their primary language was Spanish.
Just reverse the situation, and the 3 Hispanics are legal residents/citizens. One guy is the boss, and buying a gun for his worker for doing a good job. The white guy buying a gun is buying it for a his felon son who just got out of prison for a couple robberies but told the clerk his son was graduating. You can't "reasonably" discern the true intentions of a purchaser just by a face to face meeting unless they outwardly tell you what their illegal intentions are (if they do).
SO ... the police can't question a person's immigration status (like the Arizona law) but a private citizen can be arrested for NOT questioning their status?
Seriously?
Velte pointed out that “There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish.”
Where is the ACLU ?
telecustom
09-04-10, 07:16
Why is it that an illegal alien can get a drivers license?
I know I had to prove that I was born in the US to get my License in MO and then later in TN.
Fox News report on this
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/09/texas-gun-dealer-gets-prison-sentence-selling-gun-illegal-immigrant-id-illegal/
Completely defund the BATFE.
Belmont31R
09-10-10, 18:16
I got some court documents from this case, and what happened was the illegal alien tried to buy the gun, the seller refused to sell to him because he did not have an ID, illegal alien buyer's friend with an ID comes up, buys the gun, and then hands its to illegal alien. Seller says to go with ID he was the one who bought the gun not illegal alien, and ilegall alien gives gun back to guy with ID. ATF agent Kang overhears the sale as he is UC next to sellers table. After the sale ATF agents ask questions to the group of Mexicans, and discern guy with no ID is an illegal alien, and guy with ID bought the gun for him. ATF agents go back to buyer, and ask him to go outside with them. They confiscate the guns and ammo he is selling, his CCW, and accuse him of selling a gun to an illegal alien. Couple weeks later he is charged with selling a gun to an illegal alien.
During the Grand Jury hearings ATF agents lie, and say its illegal for seller to sell guns without a FFL. Despite the false testimony given by the ATF agents judge rules that the defendent (our seller here) was given a fair GJ hearing despite ATF agents clearly false testimony.
ATF agents on stand harp about how so many guns are getting in the hands of illegals, felons, and other prohibited persons because of people like the defendant, and he is guilty because he should have known. Jury convicts him.
At no time before the sale was the seller made aware the illegal alien was an illegal alien, and he did not sell to him because he did not have an ID. He did sell the gun when illegal aliens friend came by, and produced an ID. The price of the gun was determined between negotiations between the illegal alien and seller. The guy with the ID produced the cash for the negotiated price, showed his ID, and bought the gun. Then handed it to the illegal alien. He did violate the gun show rules not going through an FFL but "show rules" are not law. The most that could be done about that is he could be asked to leave. Show rules were negotiated between gun show promoter, Austin PD, and the ATF.
I think this would make a good case for an appeals. He didn't do anything blatantly illegal because a private seller doesn't need to see an ID to sell a gun. You cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person unless you know or have reasonable cause to believe the buyer is an illegal alien. Not being shown an ID doesn't mean the person is an illegal alien. If I refused to show a private seller my ID does that mean Im an illegal alien? In fact in the state of Texas you do not have to show ID to LEO's unless you are operating a MV. You cannot give false information, though. You can verbally give your name and DOB.
So far illegal alien and guy with ID have not been charged that I am aware of. Illegal alien tried to buy a gun, and his friend with the ID did know they were breaking the law. Seller had no reasonable belief buyer was an illegal alien. Not showing ID and looking hispanic are not automatic clues a person is here illegally.
The ATF appears to have a habit of railroading people in court by giving blatantly false testimony, and had the jurors believing the guy did something illegal when he did not (selling without an FFL). Grand Jury proceedings should have been started over once the ATF agents gave false testimony. The only guy that didn't do anything wrong here is the one who got convicted. The illegal, the guy with the ID nor the ATF agents who knowingly gave false testimony have not been charged and they will most likely never be.
Completely defund the BATFE.
YEs, yes yes, please, please, please, please. And defund just about every single other govt. program/entity/agency as well and we would be back on track for success!
Seriously; screw the BATFE.
SO ... the police can't question a person's immigration status (like the Arizona law) but a private citizen can be arrested for NOT questioning their status?
Seriously?
Are you expecting logical and reasonable behavior from top level policy makers? :big_boss:
Belmont31R
09-14-10, 10:48
Sounds like a classic straw purchase that the guy should have recognized. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, though, if he wasn't a FFL.
Did you look at the transcript or is that from a pleading? I find it hard to believe that a witness would be allowed to testify to what the law is - that is not allowed, as it's the court's job to say what the law is.
I have to believe there is more to this story.
Its some type of court order that goes over the case.
Based on the info from the media , this case sucks out loud.
Anybody know how to find a link to the court transcripts?
That the first step in finding out what really happened during the trial.
What kind of bullshit did some misguided individuals feed the jury ?
Belmont31R
09-14-10, 15:37
Testing to see if this works.... https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1kBuZLgjiB2dYPj9FjBULV3-nPSnuAbklxXe1h4Y20q-OndTLyorzw3QotK2V&hl=en&authkey=CKrhnbgK
Its not even illegal to buy a gun for someone else as long as you are not doing it because they are a prohibited person. ... A straw purchase is when you buy a gun for someone because they cannot purchase it legally themselves.The ATF disagrees with you (though I believe there's a gift exception):
Keep in mind that a straw purchase is a purchase in which the actual purchaser uses someone else — a.k.a. the “straw person” — to purchase the firearm and complete the paperwork. Generally, the straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is not eligible to conduct a transaction because he or she is a felon or other prohibited person. However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case. Additionally make sure you familiarize yourself and anyone who purchases a firearm as a gift with the rules associated with the ATF I 5300.2 pamphlet.
http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-4.html
I wanted to point that out , even though it's relevent to FFL sales, and not so much to the case at hand (since the seller wasn't a dealer and the buyer wasn't filling out a 4473).
Belmont31R
09-14-10, 17:50
The ATF disagrees with you (though I believe there's a gift exception):
http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-4.html
I wanted to point that out , even though it's relevent to FFL sales, and not so much to the case at hand (since the seller wasn't a dealer and the buyer wasn't filling out a 4473).
I wouldn't expect anything less from them, honestly.
The bright side is the ATF doesn't create law. They can interpret the law, as an agency, and issue opinion letters, refer cases for prosecution, ect. However they don't set the standard for what the law is even though they'd like to believe otherwise.
The final "opinion maker" is the court/jury.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.