Nope. No federal law broken. It was a long gun. Perfectly legal.Out of state purchase. Federal law broken.
n an anti-gun segment intended to show how easy it is to purchase an AR-15 rifle, CBS reporter Paula Reid bought the firearm at SpecDive Tactical and then transferred the gun to a "federally licensed firearms dealer" just a few hours later.Nope. No federal law broken. It was a long gun. Perfectly legal.
In fact, I just bought a shotgun last week at a Georgia gun store, and I'm a Florida resident. I have done it a dozen times since moving to the border area in the 1990's.
State of residence, current Florida address, everything on the 4473. When they call it in, they repeat that to the FBI along with their store FFL number and location.
My response was to the comment that it was an out of state purchase, and thereby broke federal law.n an anti-gun segment intended to show how easy it is to purchase an AR-15 rifle, CBS reporter Paula Reid bought the firearm at SpecDive Tactical and then transferred the gun to a "federally licensed firearms dealer" just a few hours later.
Ryan Lamke, general manager of SpecDive, told the Washington Free Beacon Reid paid for the rifle with cash, claiming she planned to "undergo training." He claimed the reporter "refused basic, free instruction of firearms safety under the pretense that she was using the firearm for training with a NRA certified instructor."
"Due to the information provided in the CBS News report filed today, I suspect Ms. Reid committed a straw purchase and procurement of a firearm under false pretenses," he added.
So she didn't buy it pre meditated to selling it to someone else just a short time later?
I'd be in Jail for this crap if I did it....even if the buying FFL didnt know.
Ok, my last post wasn't perfectly clear so...
YesNot even two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in Abramski v. U.S. held that where even a non-prohibited person paid for a firearm on behalf of another non-prohibited person, such constituted a straw purchase, which is illegal under federal law. In relation to Columnist Ubinas, she admits that she was on "assignment" and used her company's credit card for the Ar-15; yet, she is the one that purchased it. Even if she were to allege that she purchased it on behalf of the company, which can be lawful in certain contexts, she admitted to telling the FFL that she was purchasing it for herself and therefore failed to comply with 27 C.F.R. 478.124(g), which again results in the purchase being a straw purchase. Furthermore, Pennsylvania law also prohibits straw purchasers pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6111.