Comedian Commits Straw Purchase On Camera

Straw purchase

The organizer of Shoot Las Vegas mentioned this story while driving us out to Pro Gun Club for our full auto shoot.

Comedian Steve Hofstetter, his friends Brent and Colin went to a gun show in Henderson, a suburb of Las Vegas. Steve, a California resident, attempts to buy a hand gun. Clearly he is denied. So then he has his friend Brent, who is a NV resident, buy one for him. In the video at 0:30 secs he says “He bought it with my money”. Right there. That was a straw purchase. Remember Bruce Abramski? He purchased a Glock legally and transferred it to his Uncle, legally. And yet Supreme Courts deemed that was a Straw Purchase. They were not even trying to commit a straw purchase. These comedians intended to break the law from the very beginning and actually committed a crime on camera.

Steve responds with:

For those saying how Brent and I will get arrested for making a straw purchase, you are not lawyers, and you are very wrong. We were careful to not actually follow through with the straw purchase — just to show that we could have. Brent legally owns (and has) the gun. He never bought it for me — we just made it look to the dealer like that was a possibility.

I am not sure how the ATF will take it. I am pretty sure intent is still a crime. Isn’t “Intent to construct” a felony? I am pretty sure these guys committed a felony regardless of “intent”.  Unless you are David Gregory and only use it for demonstrative purposes. The law should apply to everyone.

 

Edit: Here is another comedian who tried something similarly and did not resort to committing a felony.


Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • Mcameron

    its not really a “loophole” if you have to break the law to do it…….thats kind of like saying “yeah, i killed a guy using the murder loophole”…….

    and i like how they try to cover their tracks…..”oh yeah, we didnt actually go through with the deal…..we just made it look like we did”…..

    thats like me saying ” oh look how easy it is to buy a bomb…….and then using CGI to show me buying a bomb”…..

    • Mike

      the murder loophole… hahahahahaha great example.

      i concur with your point.

      • Mark Bertolet

        The murder loophole is the same as in the gun show video “if they don’t catch you it’s not illegal”. I can get people to sell me cocaine, or heroin, or pot on many urban street corners, and it is definitely just as illegal to do that, so what’s your point? It simply shows that as long as there are people willing to sell things illegally there will be buyers The buyers- a__holes like this joker create the demand.

    • John

      WAIT!!!!

      ….there’s NO murder loophole?!?!?

      …um

      …I gotta go….

      • Jwedel1231

        But you only did it to prove how easy it was, right? You didn’t actually want to kill anyone…

      • Budogunner

        You’re fine, no need to run. Ask OJ.

      • supergun

        There is no murder is no one is murdered.

      • talgus

        the loophole is being Ms Clinton

    • You know, you joke, but…

      • aka_mythos

        I wonder if anyone has used this as a defense…

      • Mark Bertolet

        Some one should use a large capacity club when hunting her.

    • Budogunner

      Mess with the bull, get the horns. I hope the BATFE makes their lives miserable for this stunt.

      • Keith Melton

        No, they’ll be invited to the White House as heroes.

    • supergun

      Great comment.

    • Herman Johnson

      Very good point, but….

      When you’re a left wing scumbag desperately trying to justify your warped aganda to legions of imbecile liberals, all is fair in love and war…..

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Well, if he didnt actually give the other guy the gun and kept his purchase then it isnt a crime.

    • Nick

      Wrong. It’s not a straw purchase, but it is conspiracy to commit a crime. You have two people who have arranged to violate the law, and have means and opportunity.

      That is conspiracy, and it is a crime. You don’t have to actually commit the planned crime to be prosecuted for conspiracy.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        How is that?
        The crime is transferring a weapon to someone who is not legally able to purchase one. He did not do that.
        If I buy a gun and tell the counter guy how I can finally shoot Arsenio Hall is that conspiracy to commit murder?

        • MrEllis

          Only after you explain for five minutes who he is. Then Google it.

        • Nick

          The one was a California resident, and thereby could not legally buy a pistol in NV. Furthermore, they made it appear as they would then initiate a transfer. This is also illegal since the recipient is receiving a firearm in private party transfer while not in his home state. ATF is rather particular about this, it’s illegal.

        • TheRealHorridus

          Finally? How long have you been waiting 🙂

      • MrEllis

        Saying and conspiring are two different things. If you have the means and the ability to commit a crime and do not, it would be a hard pressed ordeal to prove they were just waiting for the right moment.

        In any state I worked no DA would bother with this. It’s a lot different than having twenty texts and emails stating you will sell a gun in a straw purchase and showing up to sell said gun to an undercover buyer.

        It’s more akin to charging a MMA fight organizer with conspiracy to commit assault. This is for show and nothing else. I doubt they even rightly understand a true straw purchase.

        • javierjuanmanuel

          So pre texting how did they bust people. By the way, a camera is more damning than a text.

          • MrEllis

            Yes, but they had every chance to exchange the weapon and didn’t. He would have to leave the state with it because it is in fact not illegal to let your buddy borrow a gun in the state they were in.

            The attempt to commit a crime and having said means to commit the crime are the precursor to conspiracy. I can say I’d like to kick Putin right in the fork, but the reality is I have no means to commit said crime. I’m not near near him nor do I have intimate knowledge of his location. It’s a hollow threat that obviously could not be acted upon. Now if I worked at hotel he was going to be staying at, had written down his schedule, had a map of his planned movements and made and effort to work that night thus gaining access to him you could easily articulate my plan was viable and thus I conspired. They had every chance to act on the plan, form what I saw or know they did not.

      • TexTopCat

        Putting false information on the 4473 background check form is a federal felony that carries a 20 year sentence max. So, yes a serious crime was committed when the purchaser signed the 4473.

        • MrEllis

          Prove it. No gun was exchanged. He purchased it and had possession as stated on the form. It was his name and identity.

        • TheNotoriousIUD

          What false info?

          • TexTopCat

            One of the required questions requires that you are purchasing the gun for your own use and not a third party.
            Question 11a.
            “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: .. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm to you.”

    • MrEllis

      People wanting attention on the internet. Everyone is aware of how easy it is to get a gun. Unless they do away with gun shows entirely this will always be a thing.

      Personally, I don’t go to them anymore. A friend of mine owned a fairly sweet Para 14, he was moving to California (He could have kept it with a LE exemption.) and decided to sell the thing. Seeing as how I just bought a pistol I passed. (If I could reach my ass with my foot I’d be kicking myself!) He had the gun ran before he sold it (Not required in Oregon then.) and it shows stolen. Turns out a lot of these “dealers” at the shows are pretty sketch on paperwork. They do something that’s quite common according to my wife (and even some box stores and dealers.), they report them stolen because they lose or fail to keep the proper paperwork. Instead of getting dinged with a fine or a chance to lose their ability to sell firearms they opt to filing a stolen report over the phone or via a form. Needless to say the firearm has to be turned over and goes back to he original “owner,” after ten years and two other owners. So they returned it to the dealer in question. I’m sure he acted as if it was his long lost child and sold it again.

      I was livid, he shrugged it off and retired. To this day I avoid gun shows based on that. Well and the smells.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Thats messed up.
        Here we have Texas Gun Trader which is an online gun market where I have sold a few items but never bought anything. I go to gun shows mainly to see what other people are walking around with to sell/trade. Got a sweet P238 Equinox last time. Cash deal, no paperwork.

        • MrEllis

          I don’t really mind paper, in Oregon we switched to a law that says you must transfer all firearms through a dealer. The dealers I know all acted pissed and indignant and ranted about our Freedoms when it passed, now they say “Fifteen dollars, please.”

          It really hasn’t effected the way I do business concerning to firearms. I’ve never sold one to a stranger and my fav shop takes consignments if I wanted to. I know I’m not all people and my experience is anecdotal but I’ve almost always bought guns through a storefront or had them given to me by family and friends. Mind you I’d run any gun I carried before I did it unless it was through a dealer.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            I dont mind paper either especially since I have a CCL which means BGC’s are waived. Like I said ive never bought a gun online only sold but I agree its a risk dealing with strangers.

          • MrEllis

            They still run BGC here because we have a system in place that removes your ability to own a firearm if you are involved in domestic violence. A law says a temporary restraining order goes in until adjudication. So you are not allowed to purchase firearms or munitions until your trial ends. Then if you’re a felon no more bang bangs if not it all goes back to normal.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            I got no problem with that.

          • 1911a145acp

            You have no problem with a law that suspends one of your Constitutionally recognized rights, without being convicted of a crime? Only being CHARGED with a crime by your wife or girlfriend is okay with you to suspend your rights until the Gov’t gives you permission again!? Rights delayed without due process is something you “got no problem with”? Then YOU Sir are the problem…..

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Dude, you do realize that THE GOVERNMENT can keep you in jail without ever being convicted of a crime if you arent able to post bail, right?
            Better head on down to the White House and get to protesting.

          • 1911a145acp

            Sorry, not the same thing. That is formally charged with a crime, upon oath or affirmation with witnesses, Mirandized, arrested and imprisoned.That is far different than my girlfriend said I was mean to her, so now my rights are suspended. You said you had no problem with that. I do.

          • MrEllis

            I’ve seen dead women and children people were mean to. Way to cover for them, sport.

          • 1911a145acp

            When some one else breaks the law, uses inanimate objects to murder innocents, it is tragic, but it changes my rights and your rights not one whit.Rape robbery and murder have been illegal for some time, doesn’t seem to stop people from doing it. Laws do not change criminal behavior. New laws are designed to encompass previously LEGAL activity to give the government more ( imagined ) control.

          • MrEllis

            We should have no laws, you’ve totally convinced me.

            That was sarcasm. I point it out only because, well it’s obvious to most people by now…

          • MrEllis

            There is due process. We have rules and regulations for a reason. We codify them into law. You can talk all you want and get worked up and self righteous as can be, but I have seen the dead women and children.

            The Constitution is a living document, are you going to bat for slavery because it was amended into it at one time? The fact is the majority of people are comfortable with removing access to firearms from people who have been arrested for domestic abuse. If you are arrested for assault or strangulation and your biggest concern is “when do I get my guns?” Well, whole other problem there.

            In the state I live, in which we are speaking of, we hold most people in jail for domestic violence until trial or bail is posted. No matter the crime a condition of release is you do not posses firearms. Since the vast majority of the people who are arrested for it in my county remain in jail, it’s moot to a point.

            The problem with your logic is absolutes mean all or none. You keep pushing absurdities on the rest of us and pretending there is only one amendment to the Constitution and one day the balance will shift to none. You lack good judgement and common sense when it comes to this issue, I’d rather you not pretend yous peak for all of us as a singular authority on what the right to bear arms means.

          • TexTopCat

            The Constitution, like all civil rights laws, are not designed to protect or enforce the will of the majority, but to protect the minority.

          • MrEllis

            Only problem with that is a majority can change The Constitution. You guys seems real ken on painting every discussion about guns as an all or none scenario. The problem with absolutes is the day you face a majority, you have already dictated the terms, no compromise ensures those terms will play out to all or none. It’s the problem with not being objective or rational in public discourse.

          • 1911a145acp

            So wrong on so many counts. The Constitution is not a “Living Document” .People such as yourself who wish to re-interpret the amendments make this preposterous claim. It IS an amendable document.If you don’t like it AMEND IT. The first 10 amendments recognize Pre-existing Natural rights, these rights existed before this Nation, before this Government and certainly before this piece of paper known as the U.S. Constitution. The amendments ONLY place limits on the Governments power to infringe upon those rights. Delaying or suspending rights upon accusation only, without due process IS denying rights. Laws in conflict with the Constitution are not law. You seem perfectly willing to allow infringement or suspension of one you don’t care for, what will be your defense of your position when they want to suspend YOUR free speech as so many college campuses seem willing to do? I’d rather you not pretend you speak for ANYONE as a singular authority on what good judgement and common means. I certainly don’t claim to speak for you, but I will defend your right to speak your mind and be as wrong as you possibly can be.You are unwilling and unable to do the same for me.

          • MrEllis

            You’ve listened to sovereign citizens too much. Maybe grab some snacks and head to Burns? It’s like you’ve never witnessed law or government in action, even on a basic level.

            You mistaken free speech for “my uneducated opinion is fact.” You can say whatever crazy crap you want, you must understand free speech doesn’t preclude you from consequences.

          • Daniel

            I used to (jokingly) threaten an ex employee (we were/are buddies) with a restraining order. So he’d have to give up his guns. And not show up to work anymore.

          • TexTopCat

            You know that is really a silly law. If you are “involved in domestic” violence, that means that the victim of domestic violence is left unprotected. Look at the Carol Browe case in NJ where she was killed because of the NJ gun laws prevented her getting a gun in time. She was killed by her ex using a knife.

          • MrEllis

            You can only take rational steps to prevent what may happen, you can’t take every step to prevent every outcome. It’s about risk mitigation, the greatest threats are addressed and you hope for the best. That is the cruel calculus of life.

          • mosinman

            or you can do what most violent felons do and get an illegal firearm…( if you’re convicted)

          • Bart

            Under the new Oregon law, you cannot buy a gun from, or sell a gun to your friend without going through a dealer. THAT IS WRONG! That new law has harmed you.
            You could be a life long friend. You could know beyond any reasonable doubt that your friend is an upstanding citizen, and still the state deems it necessary to meddle in your transaction.

          • MrEllis

            I have no issue with it. I have yet to see it even be enforced to any extent beyond voluntary. If me and a friend want to swap guns or sell them we’ll go get it done. It takes about fifteen minutes. All the guns I have are covered in paper, I have no issues with it. If worse comes to worse and I ever have to use one for it’s intended purpose I know all my guns are legally obtained and have never been used in the commission of a crime or are stolen.

            The last four guns I bought were all new in box, regardless. But I did buy one as a retirement gift for a friend and we went and had it ran and had his BGC ran and then had a nice lunch. Filipino, he was an ex-Navy man as well.

          • TexTopCat

            If you have money then the gun control laws will never affect you. Gun control is about control of the “ordinary people” do not have the wealth or power.
            If you look at history, you will find that all gun control has its beginning in the Dems in the KKK wanting to prevent blacks from having weapons. This recent “gun safety laws” is just lipstick on the same old mistreatment of poor people.

          • MrEllis

            The conservative issue with guns in the past was about denying them to a certain race, I agree society as a whole has done a pretty good job of making those same folks poverty ridden.

            Now the conservative issues with guns are not about keeping them from the poor but helping produce the largest profit margin possible for the lobbyists they work for. There have been enough times in history since we clamped down on guns for conservatives to repeal several laws. They always wait for them to run full term then fan the flames when people threaten to enact more laws.

            Let’s be clear, they are like the NRA, huge amounts of hyperbolic blather followed by working everyone who’ll listen into a frenzy by shrilling the sky will indeed fall, all the while not really changing laws. They like to keep buyers on an edge, they always buy more guns and munitions when they are panicked. Remember when we all used to keep .22 LR on the shelf of the store and just pick up 500 rounds when we went shooting? No one does that anymore. People hoard .22 LR, the least likely munition to be banned in America ever.

          • TexTopCat

            The NRA is not the “gun lobby” as you seem to suggest and I see no attempt to “overstate” the possibility of government overreach in areas such as civil rights. When colleges are having “free speech zones” and not allowing students to use certain words, there is a vast attack on our basic civilization. When a president of the US can stand up and claim the Australian gun confiscations are acceptable, we have already gone way too far.
            Every single year several bills in congress are introduced that would amount to effective disarmament of the ordinary citizen. Just look a the NY SAFE act and I-594 for examples of “the sky is really falling”.

            .22LR is not on the shelf because it is not as profitable as other calibers and the ammo makers are satisfying the demand in larger calibers. Much of it is due to very large government orders well above the norm. Based on NICS background checks we are adding over 2 million guns per month, each of these guns will be used and require ammo. Since the “boom” time that we are in is not expected to be long lived the ammo makers are not “over investing” in equipment.

          • MrEllis

            The NRA is entirely gun lobby. They are firmly entrenched in that. Your college blather is just that.

            Introducing a bill and introducing a viable bill are two totally different things.

            The government orders were not above the norm and contracted out prior to the shortage. It’s people who panic and get worked up into a hissy that hoard it. The only .22 I used to have in my home was like some of the fancier stuff and like ten boxes or half cartons of left over ammo.

            Seriously, you’re bringing nothing to the table at this point. It’s circular. I’m sure you have a Benghazi trial to re-watch or something better to do, I know I do. Later.

          • TopCat_Texas

            “The NRA is entirely gun lobby” – WRONG!
            The NRA is a civil rights and gun safety training organization. Part of supporting civil rights is to “lobby” against laws that infringe on the Constitution, just as ACLU does. The NRA does not sell guns or act as agents for any gun makers. Certainly, gun makers have a vested interest in same issues as the NRA many times.
            NSSF is the gun lobby organization and they are also doing a great amount of good for our society.

          • TexTopCat

            What is means is that a gun is really not your property.

          • MrEllis

            To buy a house or a car I must fill out much more paper. If done properly, that doesn’t even include the loans.

          • TexTopCat

            If you borrow money there is paperwork. Otherwise, about all that is necessary is your name and address. So, your statement does not match the facts.

          • MrEllis

            Transfer a home title with no paperwork. In the state I live in you legally can’t transfer a car without paperwork. My statement matches your opinion, it’s not a fact, it’s far from a fact.

            You two guys need new hobbies.

          • 1911a145acp

            Same ludicrous straw man argument. Where in the Constitution is the natural right to keep and sell houses and cars free from government infringement, recognized and codified? Invalid comparison.

          • MrEllis

            “What is means is that a gun is really not your property.”

            It’s about property rights, not the only amendment you know half of. but if you were a student of irony you’d get a chuckle out of your statement.

            Grrr! Grr! Attack! Attack! So fierce…

          • 1911a145acp

            Senseless blather.Property rights are not the issue.You keep confusing the Constitution, and property rights with the Bill of Rights.

          • TexTopCat

            You are indeed lucky, $15 transfer fee is way below what you find in most places. Here in Texas where private sellers are not required to use an FFL, the fee runs between $35 and $100. If it was a requirement, I would expect to see $500 fees.

          • MrEllis

            The law limits the fee with a stipulation they can change it down the road.

          • TexTopCat

            There are some of the states that put a cap on the fee that can be charged for a BC however most have no maximum. There is no maximum in Texas. Also, when you have a maximum set you see that most dealers are not willing to provide that service. So, in either case the goal of the progressives is the same, disarm the ordinary person and allow the wealthy full control.

          • Fed up

            Some ffl’s in California charge as much as $100. The law is $25 and allows a $10 handling fee. It’s also illegal for an ffl holder to refuse doing a ppt, they are obligated to do it according to law but still refuse. I have yet to hear an example of those laws being enforced. Your argument on that point doesn’t hold water. Registration doesn’t help and the people that propose these regs cannot be trusted.

      • TexTopCat

        Yes, there are private sellers at some gun shows, however, the fact that the private sale is done at the same location as a gun show has absolutely nothing to do with the transaction or the laws about gun transfers. In fact, the number of guns used by criminals that come for legal private purchases is less that 4%. So, if you are concerned about “bad” people getting guns there are two obvious things that can be done.
        1) Violent criminals that are caught, need to be in prison until they are no longer a threat, no early release or plea bargains. 80% of homicides are committed by repeat offenders.
        2) Fix the border problem where contraband flows in both directions without any real effort.

        • MrEllis

          Prison doesn’t reduce crime. We have the most people in prison per capita on the planet and according to a lot of folks here we are all about to be raped and killed unless we have at least thirty seven light machine guns and sundry explosives.

          • Nicholas Chen

            There is a huge difference between our “rehabilitation centers” and prisons in other countries. What my Malaysian friend described of prisons there is worse than Gitmo sans water boarding.

          • MrEllis

            This accounts for any form of bondage, forced internment or incarceration. We have the worst record by a huge margin.

            The conditions of each prison or jail vary. But arguing ours are the nicest really is missing the point.

            You get 104 XP.

          • TopCat_Texas

            Since most of the homicides are done by repeat offenders we certainly are not keeping people in prison long enough. Your statement is flawed in that unless you can make crime not profitable it will increase. Prison for many is an improvement in the quality of life from what they have on the outside.

    • TVOrZ6dw

      A straw purchase is buying a gun for somebody who can’t buy a gun. So the crime was committed, you don’t have to give it to the other party to complete the crime. The recent ruling against the police officer that bought a gun to give to his father in law shows that the ATF considers just buying a gun for somebody else regardless if that other person could buy one is a crime.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Well, im not a lawyer but if he never gave the gun to anyone else and didnt use a fake ID then how is that a crime?

        • MrEllis

          The internet has over seventeen billion legal experts. True story.

          • Clark

            Prove it.

          • MrEllis

            17 billion and one.

          • Bill

            4 of them are lawyers.

        • TexTopCat

          The crime is answering the question on the 4473 form that indicates that you are purchasing the gun for your own use and not that of a third party. It is a federal felony that carries up to a 20 year sentence.

          • MrEllis

            What party used it? None, that’s the answer it never happened.

          • TopCat_Texas

            Using or not using the firearm is not part of the offense. The offense is based on the intent of the buyer. In this case, the intent was made clear and therefore the law was broken prior to any transfer of the firearm.

    • Budogunner

      I’d have reported it to the ATF, at the very least. Ideally, if you think anything isn’t kosher you just refuse.

    • Zebra Dun

      I picked the wife’s handgun S&W M-640 out for her, the clerk said, “who is the owner of the gun going to be?” I said, “My Wife” and from that point on she filled out papers and she signed them paid the money and she was handed the gun at the end of the transaction.
      She handed it to me to carry to the car.
      BUT, It was still her gun, not mine.
      I simply carried it out to the car, that was not a straw purchase.
      NOW, if she had said, “There I bought this gun for you” it would be a gift.
      IF I had her buy the gun for me because I could not legally purchase it then it would be illegally doing a straw man purchase.
      Which is exactly what this clown did with his buddy on video and he should be arrested at least on suspicion.

  • MrEllis

    I’m having a hard time working up some rage. Excuse me if I pass on this one.

    • This line of back and forth needs to close. Normally I don’t say much about the number of comments a reader makes but you really are posting a ton on this topic.

      • MrEllis

        You act like I’m spamming, I’m responding to people responding to me. I thought that was what the comment section was for? What limit are you comfortable with then? Or is it based on if you agree with the poster or not?

        Will you go down a few comments and explain to the guy who called me a bootlicker my toadying isn’t working?

  • Duke_Digger

    PP u/c video makers were indited for the same thing. It’s the law, do the crime, do the time.

  • Brocus

    Sounds like some lawyers are about to fill up their kid’s college funds.

  • Evil13RT

    It’s easy to get a gun if you don’t follow the law.
    ….and that’s what we’ve been saying all along, isn’t it? Laws don’t prevent crimes. Enforcement of the law does. Letting people people protect themselves helps to fight crime.

    This idea that the law is broken is our complaint. Showing how easily gun laws are broken, and how useless they are, isn’t a justification for more laws.

    • MrEllis

      If everyone who wants a gun has one, suggesting more guns will help isn’t really the answer. As for enforcing laws, times change new laws will come into place to replace old laws. What works best will be promoted over the old laws, that’s how the system works ideally.

      The idea we can not change a law or ever have a new one is absurd.

      • TexTopCat

        Yes, we can agree that we should change the existing laws, especially the ones that can not be shown to be effective and the ones that allow “government to infringe” on a natural right.
        Lets start with the following:
        1) No more criminal protection areas, (e.g. No Gun Zones)
        2) Let revoke parts of the NFA that apply to silencers and SBRs
        3) Allow Constitutional Carry in all states.

        “If everyone who wants a gun has one” – true if you are talking about criminals but not true if you are talking about law abiding citizens.

        • Daniel

          “Parts of the nfa”? Revoke the whole damn thing. Legally owned machine gun crimes number somewhere near the single digits >10 per BATF testimony. Ever. And some of those were committed by Law enforcement. The NRA is a big reason why we still have the NFA.

          • TexTopCat

            I would like to see the entire NFA and Brady laws repealed, however, taking small steps is sometimes a better approach. It seems to have worked to for the anti-gun side more that it should have.

          • Hensley Beuron Garlington

            Agreed. I know one thing. We’ve been on the defense of our Second Amendment for far to long. Its time to get offensive and at least start repealing these unconstitutional laws at the federal and state levels.

          • MrEllis

            I want my own chemical weapons. No, snap, biological! I see no reason to ban any weapon, what could possibly go wrong?

            “Today in Ohio a man launched three RPG-7 rockets into a packed football game… moments later a “good guy with a flame thrower” managed to subdue the subject, inflicting 17 casualties in addition to the 97 initial deaths.”

            He’s just expressing his 2nd Amendment Rights as God and The Founding Fathers intended. Remember almost every mass shooter is not breaking the law right up until the point he’s killing people.

            I honestly believe the vast majority of people who want every weapon legal are the same people who should have no weapons. The insane rhetoric and damage logic that comes from them will be the reason we start losing actual rights.

          • Mr. C

            You could actually synthesize chemical weapons fairly easily. Chlorine gas is a good example. P.S NSA, I’m not actually condoning it.

          • MrEllis

            Can I legally do it?

          • Mr. C

            Yes, chlorine is an element, and has many legitimate uses, water purification, pool cleaning, etc. Just because something can be used for illegal purposes, doesn’t mean you should ban it. Might as well ban everything. Hell, I could make C4 at home. P.S. NSA, I’m not in the country now or for the foreseeable future, no need to SWAT me.

          • MrEllis

            Question: Can I legally do it?

            Answer: No.

            You need practice, man.

          • Hensley Beuron Garlington

            No, you need quit being arrogant and so scared.
            Illegal doesn’t mean not possible. That is Mr. C’s point. It is still easy to make. It is harder for law abiding citizens to consider doing it, not only because we don’t care or need it, but because we also don’t want the risk. A bad guy won’t give a flying F. They will cook it up, same as terrorist do when they want to, and deploy it if they want to.
            Going after the friggin tools doesn’t stop the bad guys. Going after the bad guys does.
            In a lot of the must violent countries, they have the most strict gun control laws. Facts.
            You’d think it would upset an American enough to know he’s arguing against the constitution and what this country was based on. Which is a citizenry equal to or even greater than own govownment.

          • Bill

            Which violent countries are those, and what are there gun laws? I’ve been to some pretty sketchy places, and had no problems laying hands to a gun. May they had strict “laws,” but a lot of them had laws against hacking at people with machetes that didn’t seem to have much effect.

            You do understand that we have fewer restrictions on firearms ownership now than maybe 1968? 5- 10 years ago how many suppressor and retails SBRs were on the market?

          • Mr. C

            Yes, you can do it LEGALLY. They sell chlorine by the tank at praxair. You technically make an explosive every time you use tannerite, it’s only illegal to store it without a permit.

          • MrEllis

            Possession of a Destructive Device is a felony so is manufacturing of a Destructive Device, maybe your state is vastly different but I highly doubt it. You can not legally manufacture a biological or chemical weapon.

          • 1911a145acp

            Thank goodness for THAT law, it has heretofore prevented all illegal manufacture of biological and chemical weapons………absurd

          • Hensley Beuron Garlington

            That’s because you believe it is okay for other people, particularly yourself, to tell others how to think, and weapons they can and can’t have, and who can have weapons and who can’t. Your argument suggest you don’t believe our rights come from higher and that we aren’t equal and that you don’t believe in the constitution or the founding fathers vision for this country. You also show how ignorant you in thinking a chemical or biological weapon can’t brewed up in a garage with the right ingredients and plans off the internet. Not to mention explosives, etc. Which on turn, suggest you believe a written law will keep people safe. The only people that follow those laws will be law abiding citizens, who you still don’t trust.

            You can call me insane, you can say I shouldn’t own weapons for believing the Second word for word, but you eventually won’t even be able to own a water pistol, because someone, someday will take your thinking to the logical conclusion and outlaw even the symbol of a weapon. Samething will happen to free speech and the other rights, because since the Second Amendment has been being infringed upon, our other rights have been steadily infringed upon, and will continue to be until we start pushing the other way.

            Keep your head up in the sand and keep dreaming your safer with restrictions on your rights and trusting government more than your fellow man.

          • Budogunner

            Most mass murderers and spree murderers did not come by their guns and/or ammo legally.

          • Cymond

            Nice strawman argument.
            Never seen that one before.
            [/sarc]

        • Hensley Beuron Garlington

          Amen, but I must add;
          2) a. Revoke parts of NFA regarding SBSs, destructive devices, AOWs, and post 86′ automatic weapons.
          4. Make it as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a snack from a vending machine. No registration of anything.
          5. Enforce and toughen sentencing in laws like murdering, assault, etc.

      • Nicholas Chen

        Actually it is absurd that we don’t enforce the laws now. And only when they feel like it.

        • MrEllis

          If they unenforceable or ineffective they need changed. This resistance to even talking about new or different laws is weirdly one sided.

          • Nicholas Chen

            There is no need to change them. Illegal is still illegal. If the prosecutor can’t be bothered to prosecute that does not show that the law is flawed. We have flawed officers.

          • MrEllis

            That’s subjective, blaming the people who enforce the law and execute the law when a law may be flawed and irrelevant due to passage of time. But I suppose we could work out how it’s The Man’s fault instead of accepting things change.

            I deal with useless laws every day I work, I can tell you first hand some laws are not very enforceable and one sentence could change the law so it matched actual intent. Between case law, leagalese and poorly worded law we have some laws on the books in every state that are useless. People can point to them but they do not function.

            Prime example, outlawing the suppression of weapons is useless. It’s a hold over from an imagined crime with roots in a basic fundamental misunderstanding of firearms. The law is enforced still, with a stamp costing a few hundred bucks, one that long ago put it well out of range for most folks (It would be over three grand in today’s money, I believe.) that is just a hassle today. The science behind keeping this law on the books is based roughly on Call of Duty and DELTA Force, the movie…

            We have guns laws, true, how often are the enforced, if so why not? It can’t just be every cop is lazy. If the laws we have are non-functional we should enact new ones and clean up the old ones. We have greater access to technology, this should allow for the streamlining of processes and the laws should reflect that. Imagine if it took a day to get a SBR stamp legally? As it stands gun laws you forbid we change could in fact make that a reasonable process.

  • MrApple

    Send a little note to the ATF. When they show up to “have a talk” with him that’s when the laughs really start.

  • yu tube

    At best the “loophole” libs refer to is the guy walking around at the gun show with a sign that says “XYZ for sale, $xxx”. You say you are interested, he says the gun is in my car in the parking lot. You look at the gun agree on the price money/gun exchanged, private sale, no BGC needed (most states).
    the person is just using the gun show as a concentrated gathering of likely gun buyers. Another advertising media.
    Some gun shows don’t allow this as it takes sales away from the dealers who have paid good money to buy booth space. All that guy did was pay $5-8 bucks to get in.

    • MrEllis

      No, no one is referring to that at all.

  • Andrew

    I didn’t actually rob the bank. I just said, “give me all the money or I’ll shoot you.” See, look, the money is still sitting there on the counter and I don’t really have a gun. It was just a joke.

    Ok.

    • MrEllis

      You’re not very good at law or logic. We’ll try this again later.

      • Andrew

        Sorry, I don’t have time to attend law school between reading your comments on every single other person’s comment.

        • AJ187

          He’s made it pretty well aware how much of a bootlicker he is on other issues on this site. No one’s too surprised.

          • MrEllis

            Yeah, I’m a total bootlicker.

            That was sarcasm. I didn’t think you’d get it on your own. Shouldn’t you be on TAG forming up for a rally of some sort?

    • John

      This seems very “grey” to me. It is obvious he had no intent to buy or he would have. Testing the ability to break the law is not smart but the blame lies just as much on the dealer as the buyer in this case. Straw purchased guns cost lives…OFTEN. This needs to be addressed and an example made even if it is a slight one. JMHO

      • Mark Bertolet

        What about straw purchased heroin or meth? As long as you have people willing to illegally buy something, you can find someone illegally willing to sell it. Enforce the laws we have BEFORE you go asking for more (unenforceable) lawsa and regulations.

  • TexTopCat

    Putting down false information on the background check form is a federal felony and should be enforced. However, this DOJ has publicly stated that they do not feel it is worth their time to enforce such laws. Also, I want to Mark Kelly (leader of gun control group) charged for his two such violations.

    • MrEllis

      Settle down, it’s smaller government in action. The guy you demanded enforce this law is also the same one you demanded to be cut to downsize the gubment. Sorry, your wait is 1,283,921 days for the next available agent.

      • TexTopCat

        Well, you would have a point, except that the ATF has had it budget increased every single year and they have ample funds to run “store front stings”, pay way too big bonuses, and have lavish planning parties for their agents. F&F was not exactly cheap when you think of the thousands of guns paid for by our tax money.

        • MrEllis

          Show me a federal agent who has gotten bonus? Thousands of guns are expensive to you and I. In reality it’s relative. We are procuring copies of weapons systems the military says he do not need at 5 million per and storing them immediately.

        • Nicholas Chen

          Where are you getting this info? My friend has a different source in govt that the ATF requests for bigger budgets always gets shot down.

  • Mister Thomas

    Steven Crowder did not “try something similarly.” He was making a video to show the idiocy of democrats. He did this specifically for his youtube channel. Who knows if the hidden camera footage was staged or real.

    If you are looking for an example of someone who is “trying something similarly” you need look no further than Gabby Giffords husband who went into a gunshop with a hidden camera and tried to buy an AR-15 to show how easy it was. The store, Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson found out about what he was up to and cancelled his purchase because he intended to immediately transfer the firearm. – March 26, 2013

  • gunsandrockets

    Steve Hofstetter must be using that David Gregory exception to the law. You know the rule that grants immunity to violaters of gun-control laws when the violator does it for the holy cause of promoting stricter gun control laws.

    • Nicholas Chen

      So according to a friend there is such a thing as journalistic immunity. Sort of like how undercover cops are not charged with the crimes they committed while under cover. Apparently journalism has something similar.

      • gunsandrockets

        I was being sarcastic of course, when I referred to the infamous ‘journalist’ and unindicted gun-criminal David Gregory. There is no ‘immunity’ for journalists.

  • Mike Price

    Plain stupid. Anybody can build a “Zip gun” under the “Zip gun loophole” too. How stupid can left get???

    • MrEllis

      Screw all laws! Criminals break them all the time! Repeal rape, murder and child abuse laws because no one follows them!

      A law is also to punish you for what you did, not just to prevent you from doing it.

      • Mike Price

        Good point.

      • RickOAA .

        The point most are trying to get at is that more laws to supplement other ineffective and largely unenforceable/unenforced laws is stupid.

  • Jay Leonard

    Intent to willfully commit a crime IS A CRIME!!!

  • ContrarianView

    I’m a salesman for an FFL dealer. If I were serving these two “customers” and watched their act, I would have refused to sell the firearm because the circumstances strongly suggest a straw purchase. I don’t care if the second guy could pass the NICS check, I wouldn’t have given him the paperwork in the first place. If a couple of guys are trying to “play” me, I don’t need that sale.

    Just as when a customer recently swept me and everyone else in the shop multiple times with his finger on the trigger of a pistol (which I had cleared as I handed it to him), I asked him to shop somewhere else.

    No law or regulation can do a better job than simple common sense and judgment.

    • Nicholas Chen

      I concur. I too worked as a salesman for an FFL. Discretion is highly encouraged and the managers will always back us up over the sale if we think something is hinky.

  • jeffrey melton

    Automatic weapons, sensible gun laws and gun show loopholes are just a few of the lies that democrats live to tell. obama is the best gun salesman in history and that is due in part to his ignorance.

    • MrEllis

      No, fear mongering is.

  • Alien Life Form

    We just saw an object lesson in Texas. The film makers who tried to entrap Planned Parenthood wound up being the ones indicted.

    • Rock or Something

      The “indictment” by the Houston jury wasn’t because of entrapment. I suspect if it gets to court, the case will be dismissed because it will set a very bad precedents for any future investigative journalism.

      PP is still under investigation by the state of Texas btw.

      • Alien Life Form

        First, your use of quotation marks is incorrect. Second, I never said the indictment was based on entrapment which is legally germane only re law enforcement. Third, the indicted were not investigative journalists. Fourth, your comment is irrelevant to this thread. Fifth, NO POLITICS!

  • gunsandrockets

    Has anyone ratted out this ‘comedian’ to the ATF yet?

    • Nicholas Chen

      I did.

  • Nathan.

    Everyone here should be copying the Huff Post link and submitting a Tip to the ATF. The sheer number of reports and the fact that this is recorded on video should make this a clear cut investigation.

    There’s nothing that I would like to see more than a punk liberal comedian run into some trouble with the ATF for committing a straw purchase while trying to further the narrative that guns are easier to procure than organic foods at a local supermarket.

    • Nicholas Chen

      I did

  • John

    QUOTE Remember Bruce Abramski?
    He purchased a Glock legally and transferred it to his Uncle, legally.
    And yet Supreme Courts deemed that was a Straw Purchase.

    And the court was WRONG!! Unless they can read minds, which is what they want these dealers to do, HOW do you know what the intent was? And in the Fast & Furious scandal the dealers TOLD the feds these were straw purchases, and the Feds told them to sell anyway!!
    I have bought guns before, went out & shot it and found I didn’t like it and wanted to get rid of it right away.

    And this was’t the first bad decision by the Supreme Court, they have made plenty lately!!

  • scaatylobo

    ANYONE “testing” the law needs to feel the whole pile of the Justice system fall on them.
    Then and only then will asshats stop playing around with criminal acts.

  • supergun

    Just goes to show that criminals will never obey gun laws. They can get any gun they want, no matter is all guns are banned.

  • supergun

    They make a mockery of the illegal gun laws.

  • OldCop

    Both guys are like idiots and should be charged……they either committed the crime and told the dealer their intent, or perhaps a conspiracy…..if the straw buyer kept the gun, it may have been only to avoid prosecution….its like driving drunk to test how effective police are then saying it was only a test….or like carrying a gun onto an airplane to show how week TSA is……it is still a crime and just because you are a reporter or a comedian does not give you the right to commit those crimes for your TV show…..let a jury decided if they committed a crime..

    • Nicholas Chen

      Yes but they can get away with context. Look at David Gregory. Or those special reports where news reporters go under cover to look at identity theft. They commit identity theft to show how easy it is.

  • Bill

    He’ll just use fellow comedian Steve Martin’s “I forgot” defense as outlined in “Comedy is not Pretty,” except instead of saying “I forgot armed robbery was illegal” he’ll say “I forgot straw purchases were felonies.” You scoff now, but just watch.

    And they’ll let him slide.

  • BigFED

    Not sure of the EXACT circumstances of that transaction, but there was a mention of some one other than the intended recipient paying for it. It is NOT against the law for some one OTHER than the actual recipient to pay for a firearm AS LONG AS THE ACTUAL RECIPIENT IS THE ONE THAT FILLS OUT THE BATFE Form 4473! Who pays is immaterial. In fact, this is exactly why it is recommended that folks that want to give a firearm as a present buy a gift certificate. No issues, but the person USING/REDEEMING the gift certificate STILL has to complete all the form(s), the person buying the certificate has no part in that process. Now, knowing that a person OTHER than the actual QUALIFIED recipient is SIGNING the form, that IS A PROBLEM. BTW, it is NOT illegal for some one else to fill out the form on behalf of the actual recipient as long as EACH and EVERY piece of data is provided by the actual recipient! It is recommended that the person actually filling out the form signs AS A WITNESS and the actual recipient signs or makes their mark as the purchaser!

    • Nicholas Chen

      True. However that is not what happened here. He gave his friend money to buy him a gun that he could not buy.

  • Core

    If money is exchanged, it’s a crime.

  • Jason Donovan

    I love how he compares buying a gun to a house or apartment. Sure, buying a tool is like buying a huge investment. Not that home loans helped bring the world economy to it’s knees…no. Why compare buying one tool to another like a rational person when I can compare it to something TOTALLY different. Compare buying a gun to a knife, hammer, baseball bat, chemicals to build explosives? NOOOOOO….lets compare it to a house or apt. Don’t even try and compare it to buying a car either…thats way to easy too. I can’t tolerate stupid people anymore I guess.

  • Zebra Dun

    Dumbast.
    Change the product from a gun to drugs and see how fast ya get busted.
    Better yet go up to an airline ticket agency and straw buy a ticket with the implied intention to commit a felony.

  • 1inidaho

    Sadly, straw purchases, a federal crime, are rarely prosecuted, expecially by the Obama DOJ. The difference is that meathead, who provided the AR-15 to the Muslim terrorists in San Bernardino will be prosecuted big time because of its visibility.

  • carlcasino

    Does this really expose the fact “Shall not be infringed” has been circumvented?

  • I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY

    Dear Reader, please forgive the legal speak- I wanted to be exact. Please forgive the length- I wanted to be thorough. Please forgive the excess detail- I wanted to show the ugly truth that has been perpetrated under the mask of comedy.

    Hofstetter clearly states in his video at around 0:31 that he gave Mukai, a Nevada resident, the money to buy the gun for him. In his remarks on the youtube video page, he states that Mukai did purchase the weapon and presently possesses it. They further show that a background check on Mukai was performed. This is done subsequent to the completion of Form 4473.

    As the United States Supreme Court has recently upheld in Abramski v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014), falsely checking “Yes,” to the question 11.a “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?” constitutes a breach of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(b). Abramski, Mukai, and anyone else who knowingly makes a false statement to, intentionally deceives, and lies about a material fact to a firearms dealer is guilty. Mr. Abramski is presently enjoying five years of probation after paying a $200 fine for checking “Yes,” to that question.

    There are two ways to address this issue, and only two, per 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(b) and its resultant Form 4473. Either Hofstetter has given the firearm as a gift to Mukai, or Mukai has performed a straw purchase for Hofstetter. The facts, in conjunction with the instructions for Question 11.a included on the form, shall disclose the truth.

    Hofstetter leaves no doubt as to who is paying for the firearm, he acknowledges that it is his money and Mukai is his proxy. If he had wished to give the firearm as a gift to Mukai, the instructions for the form state, “However, if Mr. Brown [Hofstetter] goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black [Mukai] as a present, Mr. Brown [Hofstetter] is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a.” In other words, Hofstetter had to fill out the form and then legally transfer the weapon to Mukai. As Hofstetter did not complete the form, but suborned Mukai to purchase a weapon using Hofstetter’s money, perhaps enlightenment may be had by the other portion of the instructions for Question 11.a.

    “Mr. Smith [Hofstetter] asks Mr. Jones [Mukai] to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith [Hofstetter]. Mr. Smith [Hofstetter] gives Mr. Jones [Mukai] the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones [Mukai] fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.” Put differently, when Hofstetter gives money for the purchase of a firearm to Mukai, he provides him with the financial consideration necessary to constitute a contract for the purchase of the weapon. At no time does he have to specifically state what he wants, his actions create the understanding that was explicitly stated at the beginning of the video. Mukai then criminally makes a false statement as in Abramski, above, and Hofstetter has played a criminal role in the deception regarding a material fact. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(b) and Form 4473 leave no other interpretations.

    As a hypothetical, Hofstetter might say, “I never received the weapon, I have publicly stated it is with Mukai.” To finalize the conclusion of a straw purchase, note well that Question 11.a reads “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.” As Hofstetter has directly stated, he provided the money for the purchase of the weapon and Mukai purchased it on his behalf. At no point on the form or in law does failure to complete the terms of an illegal contract to purchase a lethal weapon protect either party from conviction. It was either a gift, or a straw purchase- there is no gray area with dangerous and deadly weapons.

    The right to freedom of expression is not a sufficient affirmative defense to a criminal act. Hofstetter and Mukai have falsely provided the impression that one may simply drive across the border from California into Nevada and purchase guns. The rest of their comedy video shows the difficulties they encounter when attempting to legally acquire other commodities, and how much faster one can get things by breaking the law.

    Hofstetter’s comedy contains many insults. First, it insults Nevada “so that people [from California] can’t just drive a few hours to get around the [California] law.” It is an insult to law abiding gun owners everywhere who do not engage in straw purchases and other criminal conduct. But, most importantly, by constantly cracking jokes and engaging in distracting behavior, Hofstetter and Mukai have made it appear that Paul Cesiro, owner of Paul’s Gun Room, was aware of and tolerated their straw purchase. The good folks of Paul’s Gun Room who steadfastly refused Hofstetter a Form 4473 and the sale of a gun have been made to appear criminally complicit in Hofstetter and Mukai’s illegal acts. They’re a small business working hard to obey the law, and they and every other law abiding gun owner has been slapped in the face by these comedians. If you have the opportunity to patronize Mr. Cesiro’s business, which the video shows performed its due diligence, please give them a call at (702) 454-6437 and help support them while they have to produce Mukai’s Form 4473 and possibly retain defense counsel. As Hofstetter’s twitter post protesting his innocence attests, it was their goal to make Paul’s Gun Room look like they supported a straw purchase.

    Hofstetter’s point was not lost. He believes that prior restraint of a constitutionally protected right should be the standard. That’s a fine perspective to take, and it was protected speech up until it involved deceiving a government agency- which prefers post hoc punishments of offenders. While Hofstetter protests much that his critics are neither lawyers nor wrong, his own defense counsel is silent on the matter. Where is the well crafted legalese citing code, statute, and prior judicial decision bearing the name of any attorney? Surely these two didn’t simply decide to violate federal law and become a test-case without first retaining counsel. Hofstetter and Mukai have performed their acts and shown Californians how they can just drive a few hours and illegally acquire deadly weapons by performing a straw man purchase.

    Since their video “How Easy is it to Buy a Gun? (Hidden Camera)” has gone viral, it’s been reported on by local newspapers, the Huffington Post, Inside Edition, etc. Thankfully, there is a means by which we can stem the tides of those poor misled potential federal criminals. Some of whom might be successful using Hofstetter and Mukai’s methods. Those means are simple and direct: aggressive and vigorous enforcement of local, state, and federal laws following the Abramski ruling. In the same way they have casually violated the gun laws and encouraged criminal conduct, let them become a shining example of how we deal with those who engage in such mischief. Let the word go out far and wide that this conduct will not be tolerated, and make such a thorough example of these comedians that the joke is on them.

  • DaveGinOly

    His defense seems sound, although that wouldn’t necessarily stop the AFT and an aggressive prosecutor from making his life hell.

    What the situation looked like (as they intended it to appear to be a straw purchase) and what it actually was (a legal purchase, because the illegal transfer that would have made it a straw purchase didn’t occur) are two different things. There is a legal maxim – The law can only deal with what is, not what may be.