Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP General > CMP South Store
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-27-2015, 02:21 PM
Bwcritch Bwcritch is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mobile, Al
Posts: 1,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsudduth View Post
Isn't that flirting with the straw man purchase laws?
Straw purchases become an issue when a person is intentionally purchasing a firearm knowing they are turning around and selling it to a person who would not normally be able to pass a background check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyTurn View Post
Not necessarily and certainly not if the sale is through Gunbroker or similar.
I would not be so quick to say that about GB specifically. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you said that to allude that a FFL of some sort would need to be used if selling usinga place like GB, but just because your selling a firearm using GB does not necessarily mean a FFL needs to be used. For instance if the transfer ended up being local, or some states like Florida, a person can sell a long gun, and ship it to any person they wish within Florida, no FFL needed, something a lot of people don't know, and a lot of people don't want you to know.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-27-2015, 02:37 PM
jsudduth jsudduth is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bwcritch View Post
Straw purchases become an issue when a person is intentionally purchasing a firearm knowing they are turning around and selling it to a person who would not normally be able to pass a background check.
I'm not so sure about the "not normally be able to pass a background check" part. In the recent Abramski case, if I remember correctly, both parties either passed or could have passed a NICS check but the Supreme Court still ruled it as a straw purchase. It gets very fuzzy when you read the text on the 4473. The ruling in Abramski was fairly easy as the son actually used money the father sent him to purchase the firearm for the father. With the current administration I'd rather not get close to that fuzzy line.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-27-2015, 02:43 PM
MyTurn MyTurn is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northern Detroit, Michigan, Suburbs
Posts: 2,512
Default

I don't think that, if the person who acquired the firearm in the first place had no then current intent to re-sell the firearm or any particular person in mind to sell it to, the 'straw man' purchase issue would be involved if he decided subsequently to sell it. If, however, that were not the case, then it might be an issue. Maybe.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-27-2015, 02:47 PM
Bwcritch Bwcritch is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mobile, Al
Posts: 1,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsudduth View Post
I'm not so sure about the "not normally be able to pass a background check" part. In the recent Abramski case, if I remember correctly, both parties either passed or could have passed a NICS check but the Supreme Court still ruled it as a straw purchase. It gets very fuzzy when you read the text on the 4473. The ruling in Abramski was fairly easy as the son actually used money the father sent him to purchase the firearm for the father. With the current administration I'd rather not get close to that fuzzy line.
Not sure on the specifics of that case I would need to look them up, but I thought some sort of other laws got broke or something, but the purchasing for an immediate family member who is legal to own a firearm is one of the areas that is allowed. For instance a wife purchasing a gift for her husband or father purchasing a gift for his son. Then in terms of this scenanario that originally brought up, a person would most likely be using an FFL for their transfer anyway, since if it was a local sale the buyer would just go to the store themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-27-2015, 11:05 PM
John Hancock John Hancock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East TN
Posts: 274
Default

Are there any Winchesters with original barrels at the South Store?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-28-2015, 05:34 AM
BIGCMPFAN BIGCMPFAN is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hancock View Post
Are there any Winchesters with original barrels at the South Store?
Three weeks ago there were about 35 WRA rifles total. Only 4 of them had original barrels.

This week, does anyone want to share if they noticed any original barrels still on the shelves?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-28-2015, 07:34 AM
More Ammo More Ammo is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Mid Michigan
Posts: 28
Default

My wife and I were there at closing yesterday. There were 12 sg winchesters in the rack at closing. Of the rifles I looked at, I did not see any original winchester barrels. Most had sa replacement barrels and sa bolts. I believe that there was at least one with an lmr barrel at closing. They had brought a few rifles out after 2:45 so there were a few untouched rifles when I left so there is is always a chance of an original barrel. I had a great time, meeting folks there. The people working there are top notch and extremely helpful. I was able to assist a couple of first time buyers and got a lot of help from a great guy that volunteers there.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-28-2015, 11:09 AM
SteedGun SteedGun is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 179
Default

Forgive a rookie but what mark are you looking for on a WRA barrel?

Even with the drive from New Orleans and fly home it was an extremely memorable trip for me being my first Garand.

Last edited by SteedGun; 03-28-2015 at 11:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-28-2015, 11:45 AM
ShaveTail ShaveTail is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 1,010
Default

Winchesters with WRA barrels are the real news, way rarer than most IHCs. WRA's low production number coupled with an extra decade of use with corrosive ammo? One is rare; four or five on the rack together is astonishing. This reminds me of the time two or three years ago when the NS ended up with a whole rack of SG WIN-13s without warning. It was the same situation: it was the big release of something else (M1C maybe?) so nobody even seemed to notice. I mentioned it to Bob at the counter and he just shrugged and said "I know, but they really ain't moving."

Last edited by ShaveTail; 03-28-2015 at 11:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-28-2015, 12:39 PM
Tennboy Tennboy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 2,623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGCMPFAN View Post
Three weeks ago there were about 35 WRA rifles total. Only 4 of them had original barrels.

This week, does anyone want to share if they noticed any original barrels still on the shelves?
This past Thursday morning, I think 5 out of 32 WRA SGs had original barrels. One of those 5 was a WIN-13.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteedGun View Post
Forgive a rookie but what mark are you looking for on a WRA barrel?
Most Winchester WWII-era barrels had the superimposed "W" and "P" inside of an oval (20th century Winchester proof mark) stamped on the right side of the barrel, visible without disassembling the rifle when the op rod is pulled back. Most of these stamps are partial stamps with only a portion of the oval visible. Occasionally, a WRA barrel will have this proof mark on the top or left side of the barrel or may be absent altogether. All should have the WRA drawing number stamped on the top of the barrel, visible only after removing the rear hand guard.

Last edited by Tennboy; 03-28-2015 at 12:44 PM. Reason: added comment
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 AM.