Gun Used to Kill Officer Gained by Straw Purchase

[mugsy]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/09/georgia-woman-bought-gun-used-to-kill-nebraska-officer-authorities-say/?intcmp=latestnews


For those to lazy to follow links:

Georgia woman bought gun used to kill Nebraska officer, authorities say


Published July 09, 2015 · Associated Press

ATLANTA – Federal authorities say an Atlanta area woman bought the gun that was used to kill a police officer in Nebraska just a day before she was to go on maternity leave.

Marcus Wheeler gave money to Jalita Johnson of Jonesboro and told her to buy a gun, a large magazine and two boxes of ammunition from a pawn shop on April 23, according to a sworn statement from a U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent filed June 30 in federal court in Atlanta.

Johnson, who had her first court appearance Monday, is accused of falsifying information on a form that firearms dealers are required to keep when they sell a gun, the agent's statement says.

Reached by The Associated Press at a number listed in court documents, Johnson said she had no comment. Her court-appointed lawyer wrote in an email that he had no comment.

Officer Kerrie Orozco, 29, was a day away from going on maternity leave to care for the daughter she had delivered prematurely three months earlier when she answered a call to help a fellow officer, police in Omaha said. Wheeler, 26, who was wanted in an earlier shooting, fatally shot Orozco and then was killed when another officer returned fire, police said.

Orozco had postponed her maternity leave while her baby remained in a hospital prenatal care unit. The infant was to be released from the hospital the day after her mother was killed.

Federal agents with the ATF's Atlanta office went to talk to Johnson on May 22 after agents in Omaha told them the gun used to kill Orozco had been traced to her.

Johnson was unsure of the make and model of the gun she had bought but confirmed that the firearms transaction record the agents had gotten from Arrowhead Pawn Shop looked like a copy of the one she had completed when she bought the gun.

Johnson replied "yes" to a question on the form asking whether she was the actual buyer of the gun, the agent's statement says. But Wheeler, her boyfriend who lived out of state and would visit her occasionally, gave her the money to buy the gun for him, she told agents.

Wheeler also sent her several text messages while she was in the pawn shop indicating what she should buy, the agent's statement says. After she bought the gun, she gave it to Wheeler, the statement says.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I say let the law run its course and if found guilty (she has confessed apparently) punish her. This is one area where most pro and anti gun folks can actually agree - straw purchasing is illegal, treat it as such.

 

[Glocktogo]

If she get one day less than 10 years or one dollar less than $250K in fines, she'll be getting off light.

 

[POKE1911]

If the officer had the ability to shoot first, she would be put on administrative leave, called a racist, and Al Sharpton would be in Omaha today....

 

[Jwryan84]

The flip side of this is that everyone who bought guns and lowers, during the scare, to flip is guilty of the same thing.

Um, no not even close.

 

[Buzzgun]

It's not even close to the same. It is not illegal to buy a firearm as an investment. In doing so, you, in fact, are the buyer. You use your own money and are buying the firearm for yourself, the fact that you plan to sell the firearm in the future does NOT make it an illegal purchase.

In this case, Johnson was guilty of a straw purchase, regardless of whether Wheeler was a prohibited person, or not. The fact that he gave her the money to buy the gun FOR HIM, makes this a straw purchase.

 

[Buzzgun]

It's illegal to purchase a firearm with the intent to sell it without an FFL.Period. Intent is the key. A good DA could get you 20 years.

Please post a cite to the federal statutes that say it is illegal to purchase a firearm with intent to resell.


And that you see this as a straw purchase furthers muddies the water. A straw purchase is purchasing a firearm for a person who would not be able to purchase on themselves.

Again, please post the federal statute that specifically states that a straw purchase requires a prohibited person receiving the firearm.

Buying one for a person who could, then, is not a straw purchase. A federal court in Texas, just this year, determined that out of state purchases were legal. So, if he could have passed the background check, he could have bought it himself, making this NOT a straw purchase.

Guess you are not aware of the recent Supreme Court ruling that says you are WRONG. ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-federal-ban-on-straw-purchases-of-guns-1402932979)

When you guys try to decide which laws should be enforced, know them first. And be careful how you want them enforced. Anyone selling a gun could become guilty of dealing in firearms without a license.

I'm thinking maybe YOU need to take your own advice!

 

[mr ed]

He was a prohibited person if it was a handgun. Qoute: Johnson replied "yes" to a question on the form asking whether she was the actual buyer of the gun, the agent's statement says. But Wheeler, her boyfriend who lived out of state and would visit her occasionally, gave her the money to buy the gun for him, she told agents

it was a 9mm glock pistol.

 

[Buzzgun]

Yes, but my point is that, contrary to what PBramble has posted, the end receiver of the firearm does not have to be a prohibited person in order for the transaction to be an illegal straw purchase.

Here is a perfect example.

Although I am not a prohibited person, I use to get delayed on NICS checks, don't know why, just did.

If I was visiting my brother, who lives 3 hours from me but still in Oklahoma, and I found a gun I wanted at his local gunshop. Knowing, from previous history that I would get delayed, if I gave him the cash and had him do the 4473 and buy the gun for me, the transaction would be an illegal straw purchase, even though neither of us are prohibited persons.

 

[mugsy]

Yes, but my point is that, contrary to what PBramble has posted, the end receiver of the firearm does not have to be a prohibited person in order for the transaction to be an illegal straw purchase.

Here is a perfect example.

Although I am not a prohibited person, I use to get delayed on NICS checks, don't know why, just did.

If I was visiting my brother, who lives 3 hours from me but still in Oklahoma, and I found a gun I wanted at his local gunshop. Knowing, from previous history that I would get delayed, if I gave him the cash and had him do the 4473 and buy the gun for me, the transaction would be an illegal straw purchase, even though neither of us are prohibited persons.

Your example is actually very similar to the example that BATFE itself provides (can't find it now but it was cited by a Las Vegas Gun Trust Lawyer) as an example of a straw purchase in their view. I realize that BATFE isn't a court but at least they do know what they will try to have prosecuted. That example specifically mentioned that stating you are the actual intended recipient when someone else is - even if that person could legally purchase/possess - may be treated as a straw purchase. They also provided specific exception criteria - a gun purchased as a gift, for example, or using a gift certificate - that are not considered straw purchases.

I just found the site again, here's the link: http://nevadaguntrustattorney.com/straw-purchases-the-real-deal/

As to purchasing let's say two guns with the intent to sell one eventually, that isn't necessarily a problem. BATFE would look for some aggravating circumstance - doing that many times for example. But if I buy two guns knowing full well that I will eventually sell one that is NOT a straw purchase as long as at the time of purchase I was indeed the person purchasing and taking possession for some indefinite period without a transfer to someone else already in mind (except for gifts). I think you cite buying several lowers, well you can do that legally and build working guns from them, you can even sell if you find you don't like, need, or want all of them. But at some point BATFE may come after you, not necessarily for straw purchases but for conducting a firearms business without a proper license.

 

[mr ed]

As far as the statutes, it is a federal violation to lie on the 4473. If you intend to sell it to another, you are not the buyer. Would it have made any difference if she had purchased the gun a week ago with her own money and handed it over to him for cash? What is the established time frame that must be met in order for it to not be a straw purchase?

It then wouldn't be a straw purchase, but she would have still been guilty of selling to a person not a resident of her state. which is still a felony.