Mr. Marquez bought the rifles legally three years ago, then gave them to Farook. Officers say it was done deliberately to avoid putting Farook through a background check or be recorded as the purchaser of the firearm.
Source: San Bernardino shooting: Can a neighbor buy guns for you? (+video) – CSMonitor.com
So, under California Law, what they did was illegal. no issue there.
Marquez’s illegal gun transfer to the couple also highlights so-called straw purchases, when a gun is bought by someone who intends to give it to someone else. According to a PBS “Frontline” report, such gun sales are often easy to spot, with both individuals visiting a gun dealer together to make the purchase, and account for a significant percentage of guns used in crimes, versus only 10-15 percent that are stolen.
Still amazes me that a supposedly serious publication like the Christian Science Monitor is unable to find one single solitary lawyer that can explain the difference between an illegal sale under state law and a Straw Purchase. And I am sure that they must have at least a couple of barristers on retainer, so why aren’t they used. Stupidity or willful spread of misinformation to support the closure of alleged loopholes?
Not since the Clinton Administration have we seen such a coordinated attack. This is not status quo or the standard regurgitation by the media of the Gun Control Group’s press releases, they are active participants and creators of obfuscation and chicanery.
There is no other explanation, not even stupidity.
Well, the reason they aren’t bothering to consult someone (like a lawyer) is because they aren’t being sued or otherwise financially penalized for getting it wrong. The only “punishment” they receive for getting it wrong is being told by the pro-gun side that they got it wrong, and maybe a small downward slide in readership who actually know better.
And getting it wrong but increasing views on the webpage because of a click-bait title is so much easier, so do the math…