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: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

Further, the convicted is likely cooperating with the AGs of MD and DC on this lawsuit. They likely have shared information that the gun shops knew he was a straw buyer or grossly negligent in their sales to him. Let the evidence come out at trial.

Wow, so a criminal makes a deal to stay out of prison by agreeing to testify and say what the prosecutors want to hear?

Pretty earthshaking.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

He's been prosecuted. He plead guilty and got a sentence of 30 months. What more is there to say about him?

Why only 30 months, rather than 30 years? Or the potential 370 years he would’ve been eligible for for 37 counts of straw purchase at 10 years per count?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1 Do you think prosecutorial resources are infinite? Sorry the OP has a victim complex but this is good work by the Maryland AG.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

What are those signs?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

You apparently have a very low opinion of the competence of the people who operate these gun shops.

[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.

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.

[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?

You apparently have a very low opinion of the competence of the people who operate these gun shops.

That’s a very nonsensical thing to say.

[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.

so why did government entities grant him licenses to be a collector etc? If they refuse sales they could be sued

[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.

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