Utah man who 'loaned' handgun used in murder gets slap on the wrist

He gets a slap on the wrist, his girlfriend of only 11 days purchased the gun from a dealer for him because he was concerned about background checks, he loaned the gun to a fellow security guard who murdered his girlfriend. Both were security guards who were concerned about passing background checks.

Strawman purchase by the woman who is up for trial shortly, all will get a slap on the wrist.
Defense lawyers make excuses for what these idiots did.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-loaned-gun-killer-utah-204306617.html

Straw purchase. Check
Loaning a firearm to a convicted sex offender. Check.
Finding a firearm and marijuana in a hotel room and not calling police. Check.

But if there was just a law against high capacity magazines.

Was it actually a strawman purchase, or was the form filled out "for a gift"? And, if so, was HER money involved in the purchase?

The devil is in the details and we all know how the media accuracy is, especially with these types of stories.

While people may be understandably timid about this, it is perfectly legal for an individual to purchase a firearm intended as a gift for someone else so long as two conditions apply:

1. It is the personal money of individual who is actually filling out the Form 4473.

2. The person actually filling out the Form 4473 has no reason to believe the person being gifted the firearm is prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.

NOW... we can argue all day about whether this is the "smart" thing to do or that it's better to simply gift the intended recipient the money and let them buy it themselves, complete with filling out the Form 4473.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly legal to purchase a firearm as a gift for someone else under the conditions listed above.

Yes it is, but “he was concerned about background checks” negates requirement #2.

Catfish said:

Yes it is, but “he was concerned about background checks” negates requirement #2.

Click to expand...

I read several articles and it's readily apparent that what he said landed him in hot water.

However, what happened with HER. Wasn't she the one who bought the firearm for him? Was it HER money and should SHE have reasonably believed the was some reason he was prohibited?

One article said it was to circumvent a waiting period. How does someone else buying a firearm circumvent a waiting period? Wouldn't this have also avoided to her, as well?

Also, what was going on in the background with the prosecution on this? Prosecution, unless they have a rock solid case on their charges, will gladly put pressure on people to admit to a lesser charge in order to gain a conviction at minimal expense in time and money.

This might be attractive to the defendant who may be intimidated or swamped by the potential mountain of time, money, and resources it would take to fight the State, which has, comparatively speaking, unlimited resources to wage legal battle against him.

I don't know...and the media doesn't provide enough details.

If the guy really deserved it, so be it. I just don't know either way.

If only she had made him fill out a BOS...

It's not about gun control, it's about controlling the population.

Button Pusher said:

Both were security guards who were concerned about passing background checks.

Click to expand...

How messed up is this?

Glad they did not work at TSA airport.

But universal background checks would have stopped this. Because, you know, they're universal.

The simple solution to this is to just not allow friendships. Banning friendships would 100% stop crime like this.

A friendly reminder - there is no federal statute prohibiting straw purchases. There is a federal statute against lying on a federal form, so the Executive Branch "created law" by adding the question about being the actual purchaser of the firearm on the 4473. You get charged with lying on a federal form, not with making a straw purchase.

Just one more way the Executive Branch wields power that belongs to the Legislative Branch and no one does anything about it.

Theres that danged majic triangle again. Making folks do stupid things

Ladies, unless he brings you home to meet mom,
DO NOT BUY HIM A GUN

cubrock said:

A friendly reminder - there is no federal statute prohibiting straw purchases. There is a federal statute against lying on a federal form, so the Executive Branch "created law" by adding the question about being the actual purchaser of the firearm on the 4473. You get charged with lying on a federal form, not with making a straw purchase.

Just one more way the Executive Branch wields power that belongs to the Legislative Branch and no one does anything about it.

Click to expand...

But if you actually purchase it, aren't you the actual purchaser?

Asking for a friend.

kcult said:

But if you actually purchase it, aren't you the actual purchaser?

Asking for a friend.

Click to expand...

One would think, unless someone else hands the dealer the money, but isn't the person filling out the form.

JohnnyTyler said:

But universal background checks would have stopped this. Because, you know, they're universal.

Click to expand...

[Lightbulb-over-head moment] !! Think of the money NASA will save!!! When we pass laws requiring Universal Background Checks, the ETs will contact us, thus saving us the expense of finding them!!

Brilliant plan!