But Assistant U.S. Attorney Don Wolthuis said Abramski violated the law in two ways, by telling a Collinsville gun dealer that he was the actual purchaser of the gun, and by causing that dealer to maintain false records that Abramski bought the gun for himself. Additionally -- though this was not part of the charges -- Wolthuis noted that Abramski got the discount on the pistol by claiming to be a Roanoke police officer, something he had not been for nearly two years at that point.I'm guessing the authorities have a hard-on for getting this guy, but if this is the only trumped up charge they can come up with it sounds like they have nothing more than a hunch he was the bank robber.
I'd say the gun dealer might have some standing for fraud considering Abramski claimed to be a LEO when he wasn't, but that sounds like a civil matter and not criminal.
That sucks that the judge won't allow the jury to know that Abramski tried his best to comply with both state laws. I wonder what gives with that?
ReplyDeleteI see the technicality of the 'straw purchase', if he had bought the gun and had the DEALER ship it to the FFL, then it would have not been a straw purchase. The other stuff, yeah, sounds like somebody is after him.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with the gun charge is that the illegality of a straw purchase is to stop a gun from falling into the hands of a forbidden person. But that couldn't have happened because the final transfer occurred through an FFL, thus a background check would have been performed regardless.
ReplyDeleteWhat the law is doing is creating a registration system via the 4473 notebooks FFLs have to keep. Admittedly, it is not electronic and requires leg work for the ATF to do a trace, but apparently they do that all the time.
So this guy is being charged because he thwarted their defacto gun registry which isn't suppose to exist by law anyway, not because he engineered a purchase where a gun could have possibly wound up in the hands of a prohibited person.
I see your point Andy, and don't disagree... but letter of the law, he DID make a straw purchase. Now if he'd kept the gun for a while, then transferred it, no problem (at least the way I read it).
ReplyDelete"the illegality of a straw purchase is to stop a gun from falling into the hands of a forbidden person"
ReplyDeleteI think what we're seeing here is what you have already pointed out: the above may be the excuse given for the background check, but it's by no means the real reason for it. It has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with keeping tabs on who's buying what.