Posted on Aug 10, 2023
Michigan mom is charged with buying guns for son who threatened top Democrats, prosecutors say
745
2
4
1
1
0
"The mother of a 30-year-old Michigan man who's accused of making death threats against Democratic politicians is now charged with lying when she purchased firearms later found in her son's possession."
Michigan mom is charged with buying guns for son who threatened top Democrats, prosecutors say
Posted from abcnews.go.com
Crime
Firearms and Guns
Lansing
Threat
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
This *sounds like* a pretty cut and dried straw purchase. The reporting is not the greatest here, so I am willing to entertain a Paul Harvey "the rest of the story" possibility.
But from what this article says, she should, indeed, be prosecuted. According to current laws.
Now, laws preventing FORMER mental health patients from using or owning firearms are pure BS, and IMHO, un-Constitutional. So whether or not he should have been prohibited in the first place is questionable. But whether or not straw purchases for a prohibited person should be illegal is not at all questionable. Regardless of whether his prohibition stands, if she knowingly purchased in violation of that prohibition, lock her up.
But from what this article says, she should, indeed, be prosecuted. According to current laws.
Now, laws preventing FORMER mental health patients from using or owning firearms are pure BS, and IMHO, un-Constitutional. So whether or not he should have been prohibited in the first place is questionable. But whether or not straw purchases for a prohibited person should be illegal is not at all questionable. Regardless of whether his prohibition stands, if she knowingly purchased in violation of that prohibition, lock her up.
(1)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
There are a lot of problems in today's society that all converge in this case. That convergence could easily make this case a political volleyball to be bounced back and forth.
As you mentioned, the lifetime ban for anyone who was ever involuntarily committed is probably on shaky legal ground with the current SCOTUS reading of the second amendment. A bigger problem in our society is the number of mentally ill people who are completely unsupervised and not monitored in any way.
The ban on so-called straw purchases could also be on shaky legal ground. I believe it would be impossible to find any pre-1800 analog for such a law when we consider that there were no requirements on purchasing firearms prior to 1934, and nothing resembling a straw purchase prior to 1968.
As you mentioned, the lifetime ban for anyone who was ever involuntarily committed is probably on shaky legal ground with the current SCOTUS reading of the second amendment. A bigger problem in our society is the number of mentally ill people who are completely unsupervised and not monitored in any way.
The ban on so-called straw purchases could also be on shaky legal ground. I believe it would be impossible to find any pre-1800 analog for such a law when we consider that there were no requirements on purchasing firearms prior to 1934, and nothing resembling a straw purchase prior to 1968.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSG Thomas Currie Personally, while I applaud the boldness of the Bruen decision, I am concerned about the dramatic wording. I do not think the historical analog test it creates is logically sound. Nor is it Consistent with pretty much all of SCOTUS decisions / precedent, pretty much all of current US Code, framer's intent, or the Constitution itself.
Don't get me wrong, I think Bruen was rightly decided. It is the wording of the decision which is problematic. I truly belive this will be "clarified" and walked back over the next decade.
All that being said, I still don't see straw purchase laws running afoul of 2A, even with current understanding of Bruen.
2A provides for the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. The criminal in a straw purchase is neither keeping nor bearing the firearm, nor do they have any intent to do so. I think arguing that a prohibition on straw purchases provides *any* sort of impediment to the right to keep or bear arms would be exceptionally difficult to do successfully.
Don't get me wrong, I think Bruen was rightly decided. It is the wording of the decision which is problematic. I truly belive this will be "clarified" and walked back over the next decade.
All that being said, I still don't see straw purchase laws running afoul of 2A, even with current understanding of Bruen.
2A provides for the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. The criminal in a straw purchase is neither keeping nor bearing the firearm, nor do they have any intent to do so. I think arguing that a prohibition on straw purchases provides *any* sort of impediment to the right to keep or bear arms would be exceptionally difficult to do successfully.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
What I fail to understand is even knowing Her son had mental health problems She purchased those guns anyway and let Him have them ! Seems that is the last thing She should have ever done ! I've owned firearms most of My life but I do have a close family member that does have serious mental health problems and thank God He can't buy or have any firearms. I hate to think what could happen if He had any access and My effort is to make sure He never does.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google