121
This Gun Shop Stayed Open Despite Repeated Violations. Then a Cop Was Killed With One of Its Guns.
(www.propublica.org)
ohhh. nice. what are the hours?
this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
121 points (96.2% liked)
News
37696 readers
1906 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
"Then a Cop Was Killed With One of Its Guns" well at least there's a happy ending.
The suspect who used a 10-millimeter Glock 29 to shoot Bartholomew was not the original owner of the gun. It was first purchased in 2024, according to investigators, in an illegal transaction at a Range USA store in the northwest Indiana town of Merrillville, a short drive from Chicago.
Even if the original sale was legal, anyone can "decide" to sell a gun they just bought the second they walk out the door, and can sell it to anyone they want without even asking for the buyers name.
They could walk up to a stranger on the sidewalk and offer to sell it for a profit immediately and break zero laws.
So if this store wasn't doing background checks, that's a huge problem.
But the facts are until we require "private sales" to go thru a FFL and the buyer to get a background check, we'll literally never stop this.
Anything else is just security theater
Even if the original sale was legal, anyone can “decide” to sell a gun they just bought the second they walk out the door, and can sell it to anyone they want without even asking for the buyers name.
They could walk up to a stranger on the sidewalk and offer to sell it for a profit immediately and break zero laws.
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.
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.
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:
A person who buys a gun on someone else's behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation that violates federal law because it concerns "information required by [Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code] to be kept" in the dealer's records.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m only really taking issue with the idea that straw purchases are a crime in and of themselves. They are not
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?
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.
In this recent case it seems the store did a background check, further in the article it mentions that was an undisclosed straw purchase with the gun then handed off to a felon.
Clearly the store has documented issues, but I'm finding it difficult to pin the blame here on anyone but Olivia Burgos for falsifying the paperwork.
Im not American so excuse my lack of knowledge, but what sort of background check? Do you guys check stuff like criminal/mental history and whatnot? If so, does that mean that practically everyone of age who has no recorded mental health issues and/or criminal history can just work around with a gun?
I do know that you guys have systems in place, stuff like no same day purchases incase of revenge plotting or heat of the moment and stuff like that
If so, does that mean that practically everyone of age who has no recorded mental health issues and/or criminal history can just work around with a gun?
This varies by state and even by city, but at a basic level yes you got it. Specifically they are looking for felonies on the record, people with misdemeanor charges usually retain their 2A rights.
no same day purchases
Again varies by state, but somewhere like Indiana the background check is like a 30 minute process. You can browse the ammo selection while you wait for it to clear.
Okay so for indiana, you just get the gun after the 30min background check??
Also, what are 2A rights?
Yeah, pretty much. I have a friend in a state with very similar laws to Indiana. They had bought a DDM4 and was on the range with it later that day. There's only 13 states that mandate a waiting period.
2A just short for second amendment rights, part of US constitution that prevents the government from broadly restricting firearms access.
Felonies are the "big" charges (murder, arson, drug trafficking etc.) That's a scenario someone's second amendment can be restricted. Misdemeanor charges are lesser (petty theft, speeding ticket) and not something that would cause a restriction during background checks.
Edit- to get into the American mindset, invert your understanding of how it "should" work. In most of the world people have to earn a weapon license and prove their responsibility with it, if firearms are even available to the general public. In America everyone can have a gun by default until they've committed a crime that causes restriction on an individual basis.
The only federal thing is an online check to see if your name says you can't get a gun...
In a lot of states, there's no waiting period, or anything else. It takes me personally about an hour to walk in and out with a gun.
But if I just wanted a gun ASAP, I could contact someone on an online forum specific to my area and procure a gun in the same amount of time without telling anyone even my first name.
In fact, the way the laws are set up, a seller getting any info is more risky legally speaking. Some people ask for a state ID to prevent the gun crossing state lines, but many don't ask for that, because then they know the person's name and if they're a criminal a prosecutor may say they should have reasonably recognized the name.
Gun laws are essentially pointless because of that, however the solution is to close the loopholes not further de-regulation
Not only that but it's illegal to not use an FFL in the exchange and sale of a firearm. If anything there should be harsher penalties and more resources going after these "sellers".
There should also be resources to help firearm owners protect their firearms so they don't fall into the wrong hands but some states are choosing harsher punishment which is deterring folks from reporting stolen/lost firearms.
Not only that but it’s illegal to not use an FFL in the exchange and sale of a firearm
It's possible 1 or 2 states require it for personal sales...
But at least in the vast majority of America, you don't need one for a private sale.
It used to be called the "gun show loophole" and more states require one for "sellers" at a gun show now. But you can still be a private citizen without an FFL and have a table with 100+ guns for sale, and not do a single background check or even ask for a name from any buyer.
It's illegal to not use an FFL in the exchange and sale of a firearm.
Buying new, yes, but this is not true for private sales (in most of the country)
Sorry I should have clarified with "the intent to sell".