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

I myself have purchased what would probably be considered “large quantities of similar guns” in a short time” - and I’ve never received and inquiry from BATFE or the FBI.

Last year I purchased a Lot # from an estate auction that had over two dozen similar semiautomatic pistols.

Was I not scrutinized because I’m a rich white guy who just bought a $60,000 collection of rare Colt 1911’s from an estate auction? And if that’s the case, isn’t that kind of offensive?

I’ve probably bought a lot more guns than this dude, and no one has ever accused me of being a straw buyer. So if I don’t get that type of scrutiny being a fairly large scale collector, why would you expect someone buying fewer guns to get that scrutiny?

Because he’s black?

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.

For negligence, I think it's "a reasonable person would have known he was a a straw purchaser" but I am not a lawyer. Fortunately there will be lots of people who are lawyers involved in the case.

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.

Yes, this whole thread is bizarre and the OP has an axe to grind. But in principle, this is a very good thing the AG is trying to do. Aren't people always complaining that Maryland isn't sufficiently proactive to prevent crime?

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.

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.

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,"

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.

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.

Well, yes, that is your opinion, as you have repeatedly stated. Other people have other opinions. For example, the attorneys general. Ultimately, it will not be decided by your opinion, my opinion, or even the opinions of the attorneys general; it will be decided by the court.

The straw buyer was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for dealing firearms without a license.

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.

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.

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

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?

Anonymous wrote:^^^actually multiple false premises

Please list the false premises so they can be addressed.

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.

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.