Misogynist much? I guess nobody told this guy about women of all ages buying guns in record numbers.

Jeremy Herrmann, a spokesman with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the Tampa division, said, typically, convicts who have been sentenced to at least a year on a conviction — as well as anyone convicted on a domestic violence charge — aren’t allowed to purchase guns.

Herman did consider straw purchases to be a problem in Florida but added he estimates his office gets less than one complaint a month on such buys.

“If you have an elderly lady coming into your store to buy a .45, you’re going to think she’s buying it for someone else,” Herrmann said.

via Daily Commercial – ARMED AND DANGEROUS? Local dealers question a study purporting easy access to guns.

Grandmothers should only bake cookies and perhaps shoot a tiny .22 LR revolver in pink.

Do read the article. It takes to gentle task Garen Wintemute’s “study” released recently saying criminals have easy access to guns.

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

14 thoughts on “Women shouldn’t buy guns according to the ATF?”
  1. “Jeremy Herrmann, a spokesman with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the Tampa division, said, typically, convicts who have been sentenced to at least a year on a conviction — as well as anyone convicted on a domestic violence charge — aren’t allowed to purchase guns.”

    Bullshit. All you need is a conviction for which a year or more is a POSSIBLE sentence to have your (gun ownership) rights* violated.

    *I am of the firm opinion that if someone is not to be trusted with a gun, then they are not to be trusted out in public.

    1. “Anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a custodian.”

      I firmly believe this.

      I’m willing to grant limited flexibility on the precise definition of “custodian” but that’s about it. Once someone is no longer under the custodianship of the state, their rights should be restored to them. The term length of this custody must be limited, and any proposed extension of it must be approved by the courts.

      As far as I’m concerned, someone can be out of jail and still have a court-ordered custodian: Probation officer, parole officer, psychiatrist, etc…

      This seems to fall in line with the use of “custodian” when referring to the legal guardian of a minor. Historically we’ve let children exercise a fairly large degree of freedom, but ultimately there is still a custodian who bears at least some degree of responsibility for their actions. Children in such custody are also generally expected to be at specific places by specific times — like getting to school on time, staying until dismissal, and being home at a reasonable time.

      Parole/probation officers and other such court-ordered supervisory positions seem to fit the same standard of custody: not there 100% of the time, but still expecting the subject in custody to live within certain boundaries.

  2. I believe that everyone has the right to self-defense. If someone is out of jail walking around, enjoying freedom, but they can’t be trusted to not hurt people with ANY inanimate object, then WHY would any sane person release them in the first place??

    1. It’s our wonderful Catch and Release no justice system. You can get 20 years for having some pot in your pocket and get time served for attempted murder.

  3. I never would have guessed that old ladies were the typical straw purchaser demographic. I can just see the gang banger asking Grandma to get him a Glock.

  4. (sigh) Yeah, with Leesburg being right next to the Villages (aka Oldster Mecca), I can’t see why one would see old ladies buying guns. I mean, it’s not like she maybe just lost her husband, and wants the means to protect herself, amiright? And if she did, well everyone knows women can only own .38 snubnosed revolvers with pink grips.[/sarc]

    But seriously, reading the article one would think one couldn’t hardly get into a shop for all the women buying guns for their thug boyfriends or grandsons.

  5. Duhh we all know the ONLY gun women shoot are snub nosed .38s!

    Woman are too weak to shoot a .45, and too incompetent to operate a slide AND a magazine release!

    Hard to believe that my wife graduated from College with a better GPA than me AND makes twice as much money as I do! I mean she’s a WOMAN!


  6. I would also like to mention that Darren- one of the gun shop owners mentioned in the article- is a pretty good guy, and he’s got a pretty nice shop.
    Went there on pretty much a weekly basis when I lived in Lake County.

  7. OK ATF, I’ll take you’re line of argument out.
    Since little old grandma can’t handle the recoil of .45, I say let her have a claymore mine.
    Just push a button and BOOM, the whole hallway is cleared of scum via 700 steel balls.

  8. For that matter, it’s legal for granny to buy a gun to give to someone else; she doesn’t have to be buying it for herself; she just can’t be buying it to SELL to someone else or for someone else paying her to buy it for them.

    (ATF is quite clear about this – buying a gun as a gift is not a straw purchase, as the purchaser is the real purchaser, really buying a gun themselves, for their use as a gift, just not the end recipient.)

    And on one level the ATF guy’s example isn’t bad – dealers are supposed to use judgment in deciding who might be a straw purchaser.

    And if granny’s buying a full-size 1911 she can barely lift (after all, some grannies aren’t real strong; I’m not sure mine is literally physically capable of firing a 1911) it really is reason to at least ask her about it.

    Due dilligence and all that – because it’s not like being in your 80s and female means you can’t be a straw purchaser either.

Comments are closed.

Login or register to comment.