Alphecca

I assume that's a rhetorical question.

The guns were not licensed or registered to the person who used them.

Maybe that's because there's no licensing and registration of firearms in this country? Good grief!

Contra what the article says, it ain't a straw purchase if you think the gun will be "used by" someone other than the nominal purchaser; after all, it's not illegal to loan out a gun or let someone else use it.

It's a straw purchase if you think the person representing as the buying will in fact not actually be the one owning the gun.

Given that apparent married couples not atypically do consult on such things, that one person asked the questions and paid while another filled out the forms doesn't establish a straw purchase, no matter what that pawn shop's policy might be.

(I can't blame them for the store policy, though, since it prevents complaints about discrimination between "married" and "non-married", and means no discretion on the part of an employee can lead to problems for the business with the ATF.

But if the agents were posing as a married couple, as the report seemed to indicate, that's not a smoking gun of a straw purchase. Married folks, after all, do commonly pay for things that the other will in fact own, both legally and effectively.)

It is only a straw purchase if the purchaser is buying as an agent of a "prohibited person". In other words, if the buyer is going to transfer possession to a person he knows to be prohibited.

It is not a straw purchase to buy a gun for another. So long as that other is not a prohibited person.

The tricky part is on the 4473. One question asks if the purchaser is the actual buyer. If you answer yes to that and then are reimbursed upon transfer of possession from yourself, then you have violated the law. Not quite the same as a straw purchase, but just as illegal. If you buy a gun for someone else and they are legally allowed to possess said gun, then you are not a straw purchaser and have just purcased a gift for someone. No different than buying your wife a gallon of good perfume, the $3.00 brand. Unless of course you wife or recipient of the gift is not allowed to possess a firearm, then you have broken the law.

So unless these Bloomberg "purchasers" transferred possession to a prohibited person, they are not guilty of a "straw purchase". However, if they were reimbursed for the price of the firearm, they are guilty of falsifying an official federal document and are guilty of a felony. I believe it is question 11 which asks if you are the "actual" purchaser". It is a felony to falsify this form. If they bought the firearms for another expecting reimbursement, they and the ultimate consumer are felons.

Bloomberg should be on trial by now, however, I don't see that happening. After all, he is on the side that views us all as livestock to be herded for the herdsmen's benefit.

Jeff,

The answer to your question: not soon enough.