125
This Gun Shop Stayed Open Despite Repeated Violations. Then a Cop Was Killed With One of Its Guns.
(www.propublica.org)
this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
125 points (96.3% liked)
News
37696 readers
1997 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You've got "decide" in quotes suggesting that the person is actually buying the gun for resale. Isn't that the definition a straw purchase which is illegal?
Of course. Not that that actually stops anyone who is fine with committing crime.
I was focusing on @givesomefucks@lemmy.world 's "and break zero laws" statement.
Yes someone can absolutely perform a straw purchase, but that will be breaking a law.
Straw purchases aren't outright illegal though. Most of the time straw purchase laws require that the reseller understand that the ultimate owner is not legally able to recieve the product or intends to comit a crime.
So, yes, one could do so without committing a crime under current US law.
A straw purchase is just buying a thing for resale. Buying groceries for a grandmother is included in that definition.
I think Abramski v. United States disagrees with your conclusion.
"Abramski's defense was that the misrepresentation was not material since his uncle was legally capable of making the purchase himself"
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction delivered by the lower court.
It does not, it states that a person can't lie on an a form to purchase a weapon by stating they are purchasing the weapon for themselves when they are not. This doesn't criminalize all straw purchases, it simply agrees with the fact that lying on these forms is a crime. If a person answers truthfully, recieveds a weapon, and resells it, no crime is commuted by that individual.
His crime was the false statement not the straw purchase. Here's the holding:
I'll admit, I don't know if you legally need to answer that specific question in all states or any for that matter so you may be right. I'm only really taking issue with the idea that straw purchases are a crime in and of themselves. They are not
The form itself already covers all the scenarios which would meet the legal definition of Straw Purchase of a firearm. The form has questions that eliminate Straw Purchases if answered truthfully. Lying on the form is illegal. I see no path for a legal Straw Purchase. The lengths the ATF went through explaining what is and is not allowed is extensive.
You can read the complete ATF Form 4473 (Question 11a covers what we're talking about here) for yourself. ATF is Federal, which supersedes any state laws with regard to the sale of firearms so state laws on this point are irrelevant.
Where, with the clear described scenarios listed for Question 11a (and the expanded text for that question elsewhere in that form), do you see a scenario where the actions which meet the legal definition of a Straw Purchase of a firearm are allowed?