Apology To Rodeo KID

[JerryB]

I would like to apologize to Rodeo Kid and the forum for my post on buying a Rossi .357 carbine . I reckon at 79 I tend to see things different.

[Blaine]

Opinions were offered and countered. I don't see any reason to fall on your sword.

[fordwannabe]

I love this site because of the gentlemen, and ladies, that come here. I appreciate a site where one member offers an apology for a perceived ill. In my never to be humble opinion in this case, I see no wrong doing, but appreciate that the offer was made. Well done, sir.

[Griff]

I love this site because of the gentlemen, and ladies, that come here. I appreciate a site where one member offers an apology for a perceived ill. In my never to be humble opinion in this case, I see no wrong doing, but appreciate that the offer was made. Well done, sir.

Ditto. Having to eat my share humble pie this morning... where no ill was intended, the result was that it was. Glad the other party was understanding and as of yet, no animosity has lingered.

[Sixgun]

Opinions were offered and countered. I don't see any reason to fall on your sword.

+1----Well said.-----6

[Blaine]

Opinions were offered and countered. I don't see any reason to fall on your sword.

+1----Well said.-----6

It's too bad everybody can't get along as well as we do, eh?

[Pisgah]

There is no doubt that the subject of straw-man purchase is a gray area in the law. Without question, buying a gun you intend to give as a gift, or even potentially/maybe-one-day sell to another legally-qualified individual is okay. But according to a recent court ruling, the crux of the matter in a situation like the one originally described is whether or not the purchaser was paid in advance by the eventual owner, or whether the purchaser used his own money, thus being the "actual buyer". In the case I am referring to, the purchaser saw a flaming deal on a gun he knew his friend wanted, told his friend about it, and the friend sent him a check in advance, the proceeds of which were used to make the buy. Both guys were legally qualified, and the after-purchase transfer of the gun from the buyer to his out-of-state friend took place properly through a licensed dealer. They THOUGHT they were okay -- turns out the court thought otherwise.

The best advice I could give as a non-lawyer would be -- if you conduct such a transaction, even if all parties are qualified under Federal and State laws to own a gun and there is no intent to circumvent the law -- don't talk about it, most especially in an online forum! The act carries legal risk; broadcasting it adds to that risk.