Looks like the md AG is going after every Moco gun store

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

Sorry, but it doesn’t. You failed (chose not to, rather) to answer my very simple question, which I will put to you again:

Are the stores supposed to refuse to sell guns to young black men because they might be a straw buyer? Do you think that’s a wise decision?


That’s the question you chose not to answer. So please, if you would - answer it?

There's no point in answering a question that has a false premise.

So you won’t answer the question about how these stores are supposed to prevent straw purchases by straw buyers, if there’s absolutely no concrete proof available to them that the purchaser is a straw buyer, and that purchaser passes all the background checks and waiting periods. Is that correct? You won’t answer that question - but you still say the ships should’ve stopped it.


Got it.

"It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out that someone trying to repeatedly buy the same semi-automatic handgun over a short period of time is a straw purchaser,"

I guess the attorney general will need to prove that the stores could prove that he was a straw purchaser and sold to him knowing he was one, not just suspected but actually new. What does the law say about limits and purchasing weapons? Is there a limit? I don’t know.

I’m surprised the straw purchaser received so little jail time.

Because they don’t care about the straw purchasers. They want excuses to close gun shops.

If you're trying to stop straw purchases at gun shops, it's a lot more effective, and cost-effective too, to crack down on the gun shops that sell to straw purchasers, than on the individual straw purchasers.

Interesting.

So it would be a lot easier to stop drunk driving by closing bars and restaurants and banning the sale of alcohol.

Similarly, we could dramatically reduce car jacking by prohibition of ownership.

Out of the box thinking.

So you know how it's a law enforcement strategy to go after the drug dealers instead of the drug buyers?

And also a law enforcement strategy to go after bars that serve people who are drunk?

Yeah, that.

Closing every bar would seem like the right thing to do then, since every bar has probably over served at least someone at some point, just as every gun shop has likely sold to a straw buyer at some point, and is now being sued. I understand now.

also bars should be responsible for date rapes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

+1 Sorry you find a prosecutor going after shady people distasteful. Don't complain to us about criminal activity in your area.

The only shady person here is the criminal straw buyer - who NO ONE here seems to have any interest in whatsoever.

The three shops are victimized parties, being pursued by politically motivated state politicians, despite being in compliance with all state and federal laws.

Then hopefully they can make their case in court to defend themselves better than you're doing online. Because prosecutorial resources in Maryland are limited, and there is a very very slim possibility the AG is going after these stores if there wasn't a very good reason to do so.

The goal of the AG’s isn’t to win a judgement, it’s to force the stores to go bankrupt and shut down after having spent themselves into oblivion trying to defend themselves in court against this frivolous suit.

State budgets for state-employed attorneys may have some limit - but it’s a much larger budget than these small business owners.

Wow. "At least nine of the weapons purchased by Minor were found at crime scenes in Maryland and D.C, according to the lawsuit." I don't think it's a frivolous suit.

that would be like holding Hyundai and Kia liable for the drive by shootings and other crimes committed with their stolen cars also taking into account driving isn’t a constitutional right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

Sorry, but it doesn’t. You failed (chose not to, rather) to answer my very simple question, which I will put to you again:

Are the stores supposed to refuse to sell guns to young black men because they might be a straw buyer? Do you think that’s a wise decision?


That’s the question you chose not to answer. So please, if you would - answer it?

There's no point in answering a question that has a false premise.

So you won’t answer the question about how these stores are supposed to prevent straw purchases by straw buyers, if there’s absolutely no concrete proof available to them that the purchaser is a straw buyer, and that purchaser passes all the background checks and waiting periods. Is that correct? You won’t answer that question - but you still say the ships should’ve stopped it.


Got it.

The buyer purchased the large quantities of very similar guns within a very short time frame. They should have had better record keeping. Negligence probably isn't a crime, but it can be enough to cost them a lot of money in a civil suit

should the government entity that approved the background checks also be liable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

+1 Sorry you find a prosecutor going after shady people distasteful. Don't complain to us about criminal activity in your area.

The only shady person here is the criminal straw buyer - who NO ONE here seems to have any interest in whatsoever.

The three shops are victimized parties, being pursued by politically motivated state politicians, despite being in compliance with all state and federal laws.

Then hopefully they can make their case in court to defend themselves better than you're doing online. Because prosecutorial resources in Maryland are limited, and there is a very very slim possibility the AG is going after these stores if there wasn't a very good reason to do so.

The goal of the AG’s isn’t to win a judgement, it’s to force the stores to go bankrupt and shut down after having spent themselves into oblivion trying to defend themselves in court against this frivolous suit.

State budgets for state-employed attorneys may have some limit - but it’s a much larger budget than these small business owners.

You force them into bankruptcy by winning a judgment.

legal costs to defend a lawsuit can cause bankruptcy even if they win their defense

[Anonymous]

Bars and liquor stores are the only place where covid doesn’t spread. Drunk, covid free and helplessly disarmed is the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

Sorry, but it doesn’t. You failed (chose not to, rather) to answer my very simple question, which I will put to you again:

Are the stores supposed to refuse to sell guns to young black men because they might be a straw buyer? Do you think that’s a wise decision?


That’s the question you chose not to answer. So please, if you would - answer it?

There's no point in answering a question that has a false premise.

So you won’t answer the question about how these stores are supposed to prevent straw purchases by straw buyers, if there’s absolutely no concrete proof available to them that the purchaser is a straw buyer, and that purchaser passes all the background checks and waiting periods. Is that correct? You won’t answer that question - but you still say the ships should’ve stopped it.


Got it.

"It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out that someone trying to repeatedly buy the same semi-automatic handgun over a short period of time is a straw purchaser,"

I guess the attorney general will need to prove that the stores could prove that he was a straw purchaser and sold to him knowing he was one, not just suspected but actually new. What does the law say about limits and purchasing weapons? Is there a limit? I don’t know.

I’m surprised the straw purchaser received so little jail time.

Because they don’t care about the straw purchasers. They want excuses to close gun shops.

If you're trying to stop straw purchases at gun shops, it's a lot more effective, and cost-effective too, to crack down on the gun shops that sell to straw purchasers, than on the individual straw purchasers.

Interesting.

So it would be a lot easier to stop drunk driving by closing bars and restaurants and banning the sale of alcohol.

Similarly, we could dramatically reduce car jacking by prohibition of ownership.

Out of the box thinking.

So you know how it's a law enforcement strategy to go after the drug dealers instead of the drug buyers?

And also a law enforcement strategy to go after bars that serve people who are drunk?

Yeah, that.

drug dealing is illegal. FFLs selling guns is legal

Selling guns to straw buyers is not legal. Selling guns to buyers who a reasonable person would consider a straw buyer is negligence.

Look, you chose to have your hobby be guns, out of all of the possible hobbies in the world. When your hobby is guns, you should expect - indeed, you should want - your hobby to be highly regulated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

Sorry, but it doesn’t. You failed (chose not to, rather) to answer my very simple question, which I will put to you again:

Are the stores supposed to refuse to sell guns to young black men because they might be a straw buyer? Do you think that’s a wise decision?


That’s the question you chose not to answer. So please, if you would - answer it?

There's no point in answering a question that has a false premise.

So you won’t answer the question about how these stores are supposed to prevent straw purchases by straw buyers, if there’s absolutely no concrete proof available to them that the purchaser is a straw buyer, and that purchaser passes all the background checks and waiting periods. Is that correct? You won’t answer that question - but you still say the ships should’ve stopped it.


Got it.

"It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out that someone trying to repeatedly buy the same semi-automatic handgun over a short period of time is a straw purchaser,"

I guess the attorney general will need to prove that the stores could prove that he was a straw purchaser and sold to him knowing he was one, not just suspected but actually new. What does the law say about limits and purchasing weapons? Is there a limit? I don’t know.

I’m surprised the straw purchaser received so little jail time.

Because they don’t care about the straw purchasers. They want excuses to close gun shops.

If you're trying to stop straw purchases at gun shops, it's a lot more effective, and cost-effective too, to crack down on the gun shops that sell to straw purchasers, than on the individual straw purchasers.

How is the shop supposed to know who is a straw purchaser?

Their industry group gives them signs to look for, the fact that this guy was throwing up red flags according to the firearm industry association is a huge part of the case.

Because I don’t know anything about how this is regulated, what are the flags that these groups look for and where is the line between a hobbyist who buys a lot of guns for their collection versus a straw purchaser? For example, is 10 guns in a year too many for a hobbyist? Is that normal? Is that excessive for hobbies and how would that look different if it was a straw purchase?

My next question is controversial, but are these Red flags racial in anyway and are the shops trying to avoid discriminating? For example, a hobbyist is an old white guy, but a straw purchaser is a young black guy.

My last question for now is whether or not purchases are tracked across shops and do the shops have access to Who other shops sold to or is that up to the government to keep track? If the purchaser purchased five guns at each do the other shops know that there are 15 total weapons being purchased by this one person?

[Anonymous]

Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

Sorry, but it doesn’t. You failed (chose not to, rather) to answer my very simple question, which I will put to you again:

Are the stores supposed to refuse to sell guns to young black men because they might be a straw buyer? Do you think that’s a wise decision?


That’s the question you chose not to answer. So please, if you would - answer it?

There's no point in answering a question that has a false premise.

So you won’t answer the question about how these stores are supposed to prevent straw purchases by straw buyers, if there’s absolutely no concrete proof available to them that the purchaser is a straw buyer, and that purchaser passes all the background checks and waiting periods. Is that correct? You won’t answer that question - but you still say the ships should’ve stopped it.


Got it.

"It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out that someone trying to repeatedly buy the same semi-automatic handgun over a short period of time is a straw purchaser,"

I guess the attorney general will need to prove that the stores could prove that he was a straw purchaser and sold to him knowing he was one, not just suspected but actually new. What does the law say about limits and purchasing weapons? Is there a limit? I don’t know.

I’m surprised the straw purchaser received so little jail time.

Because they don’t care about the straw purchasers. They want excuses to close gun shops.

If you're trying to stop straw purchases at gun shops, it's a lot more effective, and cost-effective too, to crack down on the gun shops that sell to straw purchasers, than on the individual straw purchasers.

How is the shop supposed to know who is a straw purchaser?

Their industry group gives them signs to look for, the fact that this guy was throwing up red flags according to the firearm industry association is a huge part of the case.

Because I don’t know anything about how this is regulated, what are the flags that these groups look for and where is the line between a hobbyist who buys a lot of guns for their collection versus a straw purchaser? For example, is 10 guns in a year too many for a hobbyist? Is that normal? Is that excessive for hobbies and how would that look different if it was a straw purchase?

My next question is controversial, but are these Red flags racial in anyway and are the shops trying to avoid discriminating? For example, a hobbyist is an old white guy, but a straw purchaser is a young black guy.

My last question for now is whether or not purchases are tracked across shops and do the shops have access to Who other shops sold to or is that up to the government to keep track? If the purchaser purchased five guns at each do the other shops know that there are 15 total weapons being purchased by this one person?

DP. I am curious. Why are you asking these questions? Are you the OP? Or are you some random other poster who is interested in the operations of gun shops? Or are you just asking questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

No, you're not curious. You're trying to make a rhetorical point, and you're trying to do it by comparing air travel and medication to guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

No, you're not curious. You're trying to make a rhetorical point, and you're trying to do it by comparing air travel and medication to guns.

one is a constitutional right, the other two are not

[Anonymous]

Simple rule: there should be the same limit on purchases per year for boys getting guns and girls getting abortions. 1/person/year seems fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

Sorry, but it doesn’t. You failed (chose not to, rather) to answer my very simple question, which I will put to you again:

Are the stores supposed to refuse to sell guns to young black men because they might be a straw buyer? Do you think that’s a wise decision?


That’s the question you chose not to answer. So please, if you would - answer it?

There's no point in answering a question that has a false premise.

So you won’t answer the question about how these stores are supposed to prevent straw purchases by straw buyers, if there’s absolutely no concrete proof available to them that the purchaser is a straw buyer, and that purchaser passes all the background checks and waiting periods. Is that correct? You won’t answer that question - but you still say the ships should’ve stopped it.


Got it.

"It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out that someone trying to repeatedly buy the same semi-automatic handgun over a short period of time is a straw purchaser,"

I guess the attorney general will need to prove that the stores could prove that he was a straw purchaser and sold to him knowing he was one, not just suspected but actually new. What does the law say about limits and purchasing weapons? Is there a limit? I don’t know.

I’m surprised the straw purchaser received so little jail time.

Because they don’t care about the straw purchasers. They want excuses to close gun shops.

If you're trying to stop straw purchases at gun shops, it's a lot more effective, and cost-effective too, to crack down on the gun shops that sell to straw purchasers, than on the individual straw purchasers.

How is the shop supposed to know who is a straw purchaser?

Their industry group gives them signs to look for, the fact that this guy was throwing up red flags according to the firearm industry association is a huge part of the case.

Because I don’t know anything about how this is regulated, what are the flags that these groups look for and where is the line between a hobbyist who buys a lot of guns for their collection versus a straw purchaser? For example, is 10 guns in a year too many for a hobbyist? Is that normal? Is that excessive for hobbies and how would that look different if it was a straw purchase?

My next question is controversial, but are these Red flags racial in anyway and are the shops trying to avoid discriminating? For example, a hobbyist is an old white guy, but a straw purchaser is a young black guy.

My last question for now is whether or not purchases are tracked across shops and do the shops have access to Who other shops sold to or is that up to the government to keep track? If the purchaser purchased five guns at each do the other shops know that there are 15 total weapons being purchased by this one person?

DP. I am curious. Why are you asking these questions? Are you the OP? Or are you some random other poster who is interested in the operations of gun shops? Or are you just asking questions?

I really am just curious. I know tone is hard to read online, but I guess it’s a combination of questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting a press release doesn’t address the question.

It does. You just don't like the answer.

Sorry, but it doesn’t. You failed (chose not to, rather) to answer my very simple question, which I will put to you again:

Are the stores supposed to refuse to sell guns to young black men because they might be a straw buyer? Do you think that’s a wise decision?


That’s the question you chose not to answer. So please, if you would - answer it?

There's no point in answering a question that has a false premise.

So you won’t answer the question about how these stores are supposed to prevent straw purchases by straw buyers, if there’s absolutely no concrete proof available to them that the purchaser is a straw buyer, and that purchaser passes all the background checks and waiting periods. Is that correct? You won’t answer that question - but you still say the ships should’ve stopped it.


Got it.

"It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out that someone trying to repeatedly buy the same semi-automatic handgun over a short period of time is a straw purchaser,"

I guess the attorney general will need to prove that the stores could prove that he was a straw purchaser and sold to him knowing he was one, not just suspected but actually new. What does the law say about limits and purchasing weapons? Is there a limit? I don’t know.

I’m surprised the straw purchaser received so little jail time.

Because they don’t care about the straw purchasers. They want excuses to close gun shops.

If you're trying to stop straw purchases at gun shops, it's a lot more effective, and cost-effective too, to crack down on the gun shops that sell to straw purchasers, than on the individual straw purchasers.

How is the shop supposed to know who is a straw purchaser?

Their industry group gives them signs to look for, the fact that this guy was throwing up red flags according to the firearm industry association is a huge part of the case.

Because I don’t know anything about how this is regulated, what are the flags that these groups look for and where is the line between a hobbyist who buys a lot of guns for their collection versus a straw purchaser? For example, is 10 guns in a year too many for a hobbyist? Is that normal? Is that excessive for hobbies and how would that look different if it was a straw purchase?

My next question is controversial, but are these Red flags racial in anyway and are the shops trying to avoid discriminating? For example, a hobbyist is an old white guy, but a straw purchaser is a young black guy.

My last question for now is whether or not purchases are tracked across shops and do the shops have access to Who other shops sold to or is that up to the government to keep track? If the purchaser purchased five guns at each do the other shops know that there are 15 total weapons being purchased by this one person?

DP. I am curious. Why are you asking these questions? Are you the OP? Or are you some random other poster who is interested in the operations of gun shops? Or are you just asking questions?

I really am just curious. I know tone is hard to read online, but I guess it’s a combination of questions.

Adding that I’m not the person comparing purchasing guns to purchasing medications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple rule: there should be the same limit on purchases per year for boys getting guns and girls getting abortions. 1/person/year seems fair.

You're comparing buying guns to health care.