Winchester, MA Man Sentenced for Making False Statements During Firearm Purchase

NSSF 4473 Changes
Winchester, MA Man Sentenced for Making False Statements During Firearm Purchase, IMG NSSF

CONCORD, MA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Tyrone Morris-Janey, 30, formerly of Winchester, was sentenced to time served, three years of supervised release, and one year of home confinement for making false statements during the acquisition of a firearm, United States Attorney Scott W. Murray announced today.

According to court documents and statements made in court, ATF and Boston Police Department personnel recovered a Ruger model LCP, .380 caliber pistol with an obliterated serial number. The BPD crime laboratory was able to recover the serial number and ATF traced the firearm to Morris-Janey. A further investigation revealed that from January 8, 2019, through July 31, 2019, Morris-Janey purchased six firearms. During the purchases of the firearms, Morris-Janey claimed that he was the actual purchaser of the firearms which was not true. He later admitted that he purchased the firearms for another person. In addition, during the purchase of three of the firearms, Morris-Janey falsely claimed he lived at a New Hampshire address.

Morris-Janey previously pleaded guilty on September 18, 2020.

“Making a false statement on a federal firearms purchase form is a serious crime,” said U.S. Attorney Murray. “Buying guns for an unnamed person who may be prohibited from possessing them can endanger everyone. In order to maintain public safety, we will continue to work closely with the ATF and our other law enforcement partners to identify and prosecute those who unlawfully buy guns for others or who otherwise lie in order to purchase guns.”

This matter was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, with assistance from the Boston Police Department. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Walsh.

The case is part of ATF’s Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative, which is a federally-funded program intended to reduce gun violence through law enforcement training, public education, and aggressive law enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute gun-related crimes.



Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ( ATF )Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

ATF is the federal law enforcement agency responsible for investigating violations of the federal firearms and explosives laws and regulations. More information about ATF and its programs can be found at www.atf.gov.

70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stag
Stag (@eriggle83)
8 months ago

Looks like the government thugs are bragging about armed robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and violation of rights again.

Btkj21
Btkj21 (@btkj21)
8 months ago

I am very curious to the circumstances of this plea deal. This man did not destroy the serial number himself. He could have easily sold the gun to a private individual like millions of Americans have. The ATF could have been holding a very long prison sentence over his head if he where convicted after his right to a trial. It you read the plea allowed him to go home instead of prison. I do not see any proof that he purposely purchased guns to be sold on the black market. Buying 6 guns in 6 months and selling one… Read more »

Jeffersonian
Jeffersonian (@jeffersonian)
8 months ago

Why is Ammoland still publishing press releases from child-murderers?

Dave in Fairfax
Dave in Fairfax (@grammar)
8 months ago
Reply to  Jeffersonian

Jeffersonian,

Who is it that you are referring to?

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago

The ATF, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.

Jeffersonian
Jeffersonian (@jeffersonian)
8 months ago

You… really don’t know?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gweLAzHhZY

Dave in Fairfax
Dave in Fairfax (@grammar)
8 months ago
Reply to  Jeffersonian

Jeff,

I know about RR and Waco, I’ve commented on them repeatedly. It wasn’t clear to me that your comment about child murderers was directed at the ATF for an article about a guy who was apparently selling guns he bought and sold. It looks like he was making straw purchase. Whether that SHOULD be illegal is another question entirely. I guess I didn’t see it as a press release.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago

Posted a comment, but it is on hold.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago

No matter how many firearm laws are passed, there will be members of the “firearm community” and LE who will admonish people for not following them. When semiautomatic rifles are banned, they will report their neighbor for owning one and feel righteous for doing so, claiming that owning one is illegal and therefore ownership is not protected by the Constitution.

pat
pat (@yoteseeker)
8 months ago

mark kelly of az.got away with it.elite previlege!

musicman44mag
musicman44mag (@xman)
8 months ago
Reply to  pat

So did AG holder.

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J (@retaile23)
8 months ago

Recovered? Was the gun actually used/involved in a real crime or a paperwork one?
I guess it depends on who’s going to enforce it on any given day.

Mark
Mark (@mark_in_nh)
8 months ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

Obliterating the serial number IS a crime. Purchasing for someone else IS a crime (to which he plead guilty). Presenting false/deceptive info on a 4473 IS a crime. We, as responsible gun owners owe it to ourselves to support this dirtbag’s conviction. Such straw purchaes are the major source of criminally used firearms which WE bare the burden of when ignorant legislators make stupid gun laws. It’s about time they start prosecuting the criminal and not US.

Last edited 8 months ago by Mark
JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  Mark

Mark,

Where do you draw the line?

If a law is passed that requires broad categories of semiautomatic rifles be registered, owning a non-registered AR15 will be a crime.

Should responsible gun owners owe it to themselves to support the prosecution of people committing that crime?

Laddyboy
Laddyboy (@laddyboy)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Ex Post Facto = What was bought LEGALLY when it was LEGAL to purchase that item CANNOT by LAW be made illegal by a new “law” after the fact.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  Laddyboy

The discussion was about registration. Legislators can, and have, required things that were bought legally be registered after the fact. Furthermore, your understanding of Ex Post Facto law is incorrect. Something that was purchased legally can be subsequently banned. It’s just you must dispose of it in accordance with the new law (or suffer penalties). An Ex Post Facto law would be one that indicated you were guilty now for the purchase of the item (when it was legal to purchase at the time), irrespective of what you do with the item now. Bans with no grandfather provision have already… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

Legal definition:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/ALDE_00001089/%5B'ex‘,%20’post’,%20’facto’]

The Fifth Amendment might be able to be used in relation to the government taking property without just compensation.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-5-1-2-3/ALDE_00000923/

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago

Just saw your post on Ex Post Facto Law. I’m aware it is prohibited by the Constitution, but what Laddyboy posted is not an Ex Post Facto Law. Your link did not work. An Ex Post Facto law is one in which you can be punished now for something you did before. If something you purchased legally (say, for example, a bump stock) is subsequently banned, but there is a mechanism for you to not be punished (you can destroy the stock or turn it into the government), then that does not meet the definition of an ex post facto… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Yes, the link did not work because the system, as you can see, did not grab the entire address. Yes, the 1934 NFA is also unconstitutional, as are all “gun control” laws. The issue is that most people can accept “certain” “gun control” and as it does not personally affect them. The government frequently does not act in our best interests, even the NRA helped with the passage of the NFA, and the president of the NRA at the time did not believe in private ownership of handguns. The SCOTUS, shortly after that ruled in the 1939 Miller decision that… Read more »

Last edited 8 months ago by Heed the Call-up
JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago

I agree with all of that, but that has nothing to do with Ex Post Facto laws. You switched the argument.

Laddyboy’s argument was that registration was not legal because it would be an Ex Post Facto law. You agreed with him. However, that is not how Ex Post Facto laws work.

Now you are bringing up the 2nd Amendment. I agree that registration requirements are a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Yes, that was his argument, not mine. I do not agree with the government forcing you do destroy or turn in property, with or without recompense when it was legally purchased. I understand your argument on the NFA requiring registration of automatic weapons, though I do not agree with registration. I understand there were about 400,000 automatic weapons registered during the time we were “allowed” to purchase new automatic weapons. I wonder how many of the automatic weapons that pre-existed the NFA were actually registered. Current rates of compliance with registration in states, such as NYS and others, suggest a… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago

Ok, I misunderstood when you posted the link to Ex Post Facto – it looked like you were agreeing with LaddyBoy. I don’t agree with the government taking property except under the most extreme conditions. I certainly don’t agree with the government (Trump) banning bump stocks. I don’t agree with him not having a grandfather provision. I don’t agree with him not compensating people for their property. I’ve made the rate of fire argument before. What will the government ban next – Jerry Miculek’s index finger? Opposable thumbs? Belt loops? One of the many reasons the bump stock ban was… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Yes, it does not appear that the ex posto facto law as it is considered under our Constitution, and ruled on by our courts, applies to government mandated destruction or seizure of bump stocks. That is why I stated that more likely the Fifth Amendment would provide a more reasonable argument, but then I am neither a Constitutional Scholar nor a lawyer or judge. Regardless of whether there is an enumerated right protecting us from government seizure, the rights listed in the Constitution and enumerated in the Amendments are not the only rights we have, as specified in the Ninth… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
8 months ago

Much as I love watching Jerry or his daughter shoot, they cannot simply be considered “trained shooters”. They are on a whole other plain than the vast majority of “trained” shooters. Takes more than training anyway, takes practice and some degree of innate skill – both of which are in short supply in my case.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

You should see the video of him using a bump stock. He had a lot of trouble trying to run it. So, the reality is that bump firing takes skill and practice, too.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago

Posted a reply, but it is on hold.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  Laddyboy

Posted a reply, but it is on hold.

Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
8 months ago
Reply to  Mark

Purchasing for someone else, on its face, is NOT a crime. I can buy a handgun as a birthday present for a friend, legally. It is buying for someone who CANNOT legally possess it that is a crime. We did not see, in this piece, whether the eventual recipient of those arms WAS indeed a prohibited person. If so, yes, t’row da book addim. Yes, obliterating a serial number IS ca crime.. but SHOULD it be? WHO is the victim, in this case? He still possessed it. What harm was done? And don’t give me the “well maybe he COULD… Read more »

Laddyboy
Laddyboy (@laddyboy)
8 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

Ask the Son who was PERSECUTED and PROSECUTED for buying a handgun. The handgun was transferred LEGALLY through a FFL dealer which sent the handgun to another FFL dealer near the father. The Father, being a LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN who was LEGALLY ABLE to own firearms was also PERSECUTED and PROSECUTED for accepting the handgun through a FFL dealer in his neighborhood.
All done by the “atf” sycophants who wanted to SCORE a victory! Even when their charges were BOGUS and ILLEGAL!

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
8 months ago
Reply to  Laddyboy

Do you have links or other info on this case? On the face of it, this sounds wildly outrageous. Not that I’d deny such behavior an batfe’s part – just want to see details and some collaboration of the accusation. If it was recent enough – put it on our rep’s and senator’s radar. They need ammo to go after batfe’s abuses. Current environment encourages prosecution of LEO for abuse-of-authority cases. Even if we disagree with left wing pushing for “defund police”, we should be taking advantage of the environment they have created. Abuses of gun-law or gun-owners should be… Read more »

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
8 months ago

“In addition, during the purchase of three of the firearms, Morris-Janey falsely claimed he lived at a New Hampshire address.”
The FFl that sold him the gun must not be following the law. The address given on the 4473 must match the address on your identification such as your DL.

Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
8 months ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

not only that it would seem, on its face, that he was an out of state resident attempting to purchase a handgun (the Riger LCP?) in a state where he is not a resident. HUGE no no no no. Unless that purchase was a long gun. Either he DID linve in NH and had the ID to orove it, or he lived in PA and the FFL missed something.

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
8 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

Or he had moved from NH to PA, but still had his NH license. Typically one has 30 days to update address on license or get new license from new state. Is it illegal to purchase a firearm during interval between licenses? Does and should closure of licensing offices change this? If newly adopted state will not issue a new license, can one continue driving with license from the old state – I don’t believe you technically can, but don’t think you’ll be prosecuted barring extreme circumstances. However if new state refuses to provide an updated license, It becomes illegal… Read more »

HoundDogDave
HoundDogDave (@hounddogdave)
8 months ago

Shall not be infringed, yadda,yadda, yadda… The paperwork clearly states, lying on this document is a federal crime, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. He was not charged with any gun crime, he was charged with falsifying a government document. What he did or didn’t do with the firearms is irrelevant, he knew he was committing a crime and did it anyway. He’s getting what he earned.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  HoundDogDave

Does the logic you put forward always hold true, no matter what the law?

Should it also apply to government employees (e.g., LEOs lying on reports, destroying evidence, tampering with evidence, withholding evidence, intimidating people who testified against their fellow LEOs, etc.)?

musicman44mag
musicman44mag (@xman)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Yes.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

There were two questions – you answered “yes” – does that mean yes to both of them?

Regarding the first question – Do you believe the logic he used should always hold true, no matter what the gun control law – if someone breaks the law they should be punished with a fine and/or imprisonment? More specifically, if a law is passed requiring registration of semiautomatic rifles and someone does not register one, do you believe that person should be imprisoned for five years?

Last edited 8 months ago by JSNMGC
HoundDogDave
HoundDogDave (@hounddogdave)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Yes and no. Back to my statement. Shall not be infringed Any law that violates the U.S.CONSTITUTION IS NULL AND VOID. So NO if the law violates our right to bear arms, BUT a law against lying on a Federal Government document does NOT violate any rights. You still have the right to not fill out the document or fill it out truthfully and live with whatever consequence (like rejection ) that may result. So yes, government employees (e.g., LEOs lying on reports, destroying evidence, tampering with evidence, withholding evidence, intimidating people who testified against their fellow LEOs, etc.) should… Read more »

Last edited 8 months ago by HoundDogDave
JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  HoundDogDave

Let’s say there is a law that requires all semiautomatic rifles be registered and the 4473 is updated to include the following statement:

“I hereby declare that I have properly registered all firearms which require registering according to federal law.”

Assume a person did not register his AR15 and refuses to do so and now wants to purchase bolt action rifle.

Is it your opinion that the person should either:

  • Not buy the bolt action rifle; or
  • If the person lies on the form and is put in jail, he would be “getting what he earned?”
Last edited 8 months ago by JSNMGC
HoundDogDave
HoundDogDave (@hounddogdave)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Again, a law that requires all semiautomatic rifles be registered is a violation of the 2nd amendment therefor is null and void. So answering “yes” to the question
“I hereby declare that I have properly registered all firearms which require registering according to federal law.” while you have an unregistered firearm is NOT a false statement because there can be no valid law that meets a REQUIREMENT to register.

Not saying they won’t prosecute you and toss you in jail. But that would just be another violation of your rights, because, well, that’s what they do.

Last edited 8 months ago by HoundDogDave
JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  HoundDogDave

When they are passed, will Universal Background Check laws be valid?

HoundDogDave
HoundDogDave (@hounddogdave)
8 months ago
Reply to  HoundDogDave

If you’re still concerned, move to Missouri…problem solved.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  HoundDogDave

You’re the one who wrote:

“he knew he was committing a crime and did it anyway. He’s getting what he earned.”

I’m just curious what laws you think non-LEOs should have their lives ruined over. What about Universal Background Check laws – are they valid?

HoundDogDave
HoundDogDave (@hounddogdave)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Please stop asking me stupid questions. I clarified several times already. The law he was charged under had absolutely nothing to do with firearms. He knowingly made a false statement on a U.S. federal government document. He was aware it was a crime and willfully committed the crime anyway. My comment was about HIS crime and no one else. Now STFU and move along.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  HoundDogDave

No you haven’t. Universal Background Checks will require that a 4473 be completed for transfers between non-FFLs. Is refusal to complete a required form of the same importance as making a false statement on one that is completed?

You came on a gun rights board and made comments about someone “getting what he earned.” You should have expected some push-back.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  HoundDogDave

Will – 3/10/21:

“@HDD,take my advice and just stop responding to JSNMGC. That ole boy just wants to go back forth,back and forth with you and will continue until you agree with his nonsense or just stop responding.”

Response to Will:

Kind of like a discussion.

Disagreement with never-ending gun control is nonsense?

Laddyboy
Laddyboy (@laddyboy)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

@J; My response is: EX POST FACTO law!!

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  Laddyboy

That’s not what that term means.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy (@laddyboy)
8 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

0bama FALSIFIED Federal Documents. 0bama is STILL a “free” muslem flying around the world on OUR TAX DOLLARS!!!

TStheDeplorable
TStheDeplorable (@tvsteinke)
8 months ago

Not one violent act was prevented by this paperwork violation.

Bubba
Bubba (@2abubba)
8 months ago

Straw purchases are illegal and not protected under the constitution.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  Bubba

Bubba,

If a law is passed that requires broad categories of semiautomatic rifles be registered, owning a non-registered AR15 will be illegal. Will the ownership of a non-registered AR15 not be protected under the Constitution?

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago
Reply to  Bubba

Our federal Constitution does not state that you are only “allowed” to purchase firearms for oneself. Neither does it state that firearms are required to have serial numbers (which did not even exist back then, either). Some manufacturers began, I believe starting in the late 1800s, putting markings on their firearms, solely for their use, not the federal government. Later, the federal government decided that licensed manufacturers were required to put serial numbers on certain parts of firearms so that the government could track firearms.

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
8 months ago
Reply to  Bubba

“straw purchases”are defined as buying for a PROHIBITED PERSON. Did this gung ho AG prove that the guns were purchased and deivered to prohibited persons? If not, no crime was committed. No law was broken.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC (@jsnmgc)
8 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

While I believe LE should focus on murderers, rapists, armed robbers, people who illegally enter homes, etc., I believe you are incorrect on your understanding of a “straw purchase” of a firearm:

https://www.ffl123.com/what-is-straw-purchase/

RoyD
RoyD (@royd)
8 months ago

Looks like Tyrone gave some people up for leniency. He was just “keepin it real.”

USA v. Janey (1:19-cr-00252), New Hampshire District Court (pacermonitor.com)

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill (@deplorable-bill)
8 months ago

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that is difficult to understand?

“If a man has no sword (the assault weapon of that day), he should sell his cloak (his outer garment) and buy one”. Luke 22:36.

Therefore:

Those who would delay or deny one’s. GOD given, constitutionally protected RIGHT to keep and bear arms is by definition criminal to the point of TREASON and TYRANNY and EVIL according to SCRIPTURE, the very same SCRIPTURE this nation is founded upon.

Arm up and carry on

Rob
Rob (@rob)
8 months ago

Did you understand any part of the article or is this your normal incoherent rant?

Oldman
Oldman (@crazyphone)
8 months ago
Reply to  Rob

I would ask you Rob; Can you or can’t YOU understand Bill’s reply to the article? If you can’t, then it would be MHO that you know NOT of what YOU Speak. Cased closed! You are sentenced to ten years in Purgatory starting now.

Bubba
Bubba (@2abubba)
8 months ago
Reply to  Rob

I don’t think he understood the article

Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
8 months ago
Reply to  Rob

I suspect he comprehended much the same as I did. WHERE are his victims? Did the State PROVE the recipients of the “srtaw purchases” was a prhibited person? What harm was actually DONE by the serioal number being effeced? WHO was harmed, aside from the sensitivities of the gummit poohbahs with the swelled heads? Was any HARM perpetrated upon anyone else by any of thise guy’s actions, or are all these “crimes” paperwork offenses? Malum in se or malum prohibidum?

Enquiring minds want to know.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag (@xman)
8 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

He gave a fake address which was lying on the form which is illegal if you observe current laws and keep them. If you are from the stance that having to fill out a form is an infringement then you would be in argument with that sentencing. If you are in argument with registration you would be against the sentence for the destruction of the serial number. The serial number being erased or destroyed is against the law but if we are allowed to have 80% weapons, what difference does it make. No guns should have any serial numbers. The… Read more »

USCitizen
USCitizen (@82patriot)
8 months ago

Bill, you correctly quote the the Second Amendment words “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Unfortunately your use of scripture is totally out of context and has nothing to do with God given Rights but in-fact, the fulfillment of scripture by Jesus. We don’t strengthen the case for 2A Rights by twisting scripture or someone else’s words to mean something they weren’t intended to mean. That’s the same thing anti-gun people do. Text, without context, is usually a pretext.

Last edited 8 months ago by USCitizen
BigJim
BigJim (@bigjim)
8 months ago
Reply to  USCitizen

If that person is deemed safe enough by a judge to be walking the streets he is considered worthy to be armed as well. The 1968 GCA made it illegal for felons to Purchase firearms, that’s about it. Many of them are caught a second time with a weapon. Some of them have ‘old friends’ who’d shoot them if they had the chance. So yes ’68 gun control is useless and pointless. That is the point Deplorable Bill has made.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago
Reply to  BigJim

Actually, the 1938 FFA is when felons were disbarred their RKBA. That law was mostly overwritten by the next batch of “gun control” laws that amended numerous sections of federal law, the 1968 GCA. As we can see, the progression of laws infringing on our rights continues almost unabated. The following set of amendments to federal code, further shackled our rights, the 1986 FOPA (saying that acronym as a word convenes its true meaning of how it infringes on or rights). The Firearm Owners Protection Act banned automatic weapons from personal possession. It did grandfather in automatic weapons that were… Read more »

Last edited 8 months ago by Heed the Call-up
Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
8 months ago
Reply to  BigJim

exactly. Further there are an YUUUUGE mumber of “felonies” that are not, by their nature, felony level acts. Like defacing the serioal number on MY PEROSAL property. Or, how about this: in my county it is listed as felony to shoot a CT. Even a nuisance feral cat. Vermin the county animal control folks refuse to do, but when I do it it is a felony Or how about the Montana cattlemen who apply the Four Ess solution to the artificually intorduced Greater Grey Wolf which is devastating their operations, but the killing of which is a federal felony as… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag (@xman)
8 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

I love your speed limit analogy. I live in Oregone, the max speed that I have seen is 65 and that is on an interstate. When I was in Montana I think the max speed was 80 or 85. My car couldn’t even go that fast and that is the max on the speedometer. LOL Kommiefornia smog piece of crap. So when the poor people from states that go fast come here, they damn near fall asleep at the wheel because they are so bored but their states speed limit in our state would be a felony. We need 85… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
8 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

Dang – and there I thought speeding became criminal (rather than civil offense) at triple digits. Misdemeanor charges would be bad, but nowhere near felony level. Guess I better not set my cruise control at 95. Have heard from Texas cops that they usually won’t stop someone doing less than 15 over and then typically won’t ticket unless they were more than 20 over. Last time I got a ticket, so many years ago, paperwork said anything over 24mph in excess could not be excused for taking driver’s training. So limit is 25 over to actually get a ticket (assuming… Read more »

Bubba
Bubba (@2abubba)
8 months ago

Straw purchases are not protected under the constitution.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up (@daveeckartverizon-net)
8 months ago
Reply to  Bubba

They are not illegal under the Constitution. In fact, I believe “shall not be infringed” covers that argument about “illegal” sales.