One problem you’re never going to make go away is that of straw buys for guns.
If you’re unfamiliar with the term, it’s when someone with a clean background check goes and buys guns for someone who can’t pass a NICS check on their own.
While some gun control advocates have a problem with this, they must remember that this is already illegal.
In fact, a Pennsylvania woman just got three years for straw buys.
According to U.S. Attorney Gerard M. Karam, Quinniea Gross, age 27, of Wilkes Barre, was convicted by a jury of conspiracy and straw purchasing firearms in July 2023.
Police say Gross accompanied a drug addict to several gun dealers in Northeastern Pennsylvania and took possession of firearms purchased by her coconspirator. Gross did this for drug traffickers to whom the drug addict owed money for a drug debt, officials noted.
She was sentenced for “giving false statements in connection with the acquisition of firearms.”
Maybe it’s just me, but this sounds suspiciously like the charges Hunter Biden is facing, doesn’t it? You know, that whole “little prosecuted” thing that leftists in the media tried to claim so they could pretend Hunter is getting a raw deal.
I’m pretty sure Ms Gross wishes that really were the case.
The truth is, though, straw buys are actually hard to prosecute. A lot of people are smart enough not to give off overt signals as to what they’re doing and unless a gun is almost immediately used in a crime, it’s pretty easy for the person who originally bought it to say they sold it or that it was stolen.
Yet, despite that, straw buys also only account for a small percentage of the guns that end up in criminal hands. That’s probably because most people with clean records would prefer to keep them clean as well as the fact that most criminals probably don’t associate with a lot of people with that clean of a record to begin with.
But some people are clean only because they haven’t been caught yet and those folks will buy guns for someone else despite the penalties.
Then again, three years doesn’t seem like all that long for breaking a federal law, especially when you consider how many people never serve their entire sentence.
Look, I oppose gun control on general principle. I don’t think people who use a certain substance should be barred from buying guns for themselves because, well, there are a lot of problems with where we draw the line on that. Saying they can’t carry while intoxicated might be different, but just being a user in a general sense is different.
I say all that so people know I’m not a fan of the laws in question.
However, if we’re going to have this law and millions upon millions are going to get up in arms if we try to repeal this law, I want to know how you justify it when you’re also handing out sentences that aren’t really going to accomplish all that much in the grand scheme of things except make them have a record so they can’t straw buy again?
I’m not holding my breath waiting for an answer.