Once Black checked “yes” to that question Federal law was violated. Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a.
If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.
Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? Rittenhouse, Black and Black’s father all gave statements both to the police and media that provide all the evidence the Feds need to convict on a Federal straw purchase. The firearm does not have to be delivered to Rittenhouse to constitute the straw purchase. (But never did they imagine that the federal government would involve itself with a killing that happened within the jurisdiction of a state.)
Rather the rule should be “no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense, nor suffer another trial for any offenses related to the same act or series of acts that was or were the cause of the initial trial.” It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but I think it gets better to plugging the apparent gap between what the founders intended and how their intent has been corrupted. They abide by the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. Where the state charges “murder”, the feds charge with “violation of civil rights” (or some such), and claim that the action doesn’t try a person twice for the same offense because they’re trying the person for different offenses. The feds get around “double jeopardy” by trying someone for an offense other than that with which he was charged by the state. But the federal government does not abide by it. What we need is the enforcement of these concepts that should still be binding. Here’s something I found that is fairly well a synopsis of the principles that were expounded upon in greater detail in the publication: There are also gradations of jurisdiction, in which the federal government shares jurisdiction with the state over land within the state, ranging from federal jurisdiction being no greater than that of any other private land owner in the state (proprietary jurisdiction), to forms of concurrent jurisdiction in which the state and federal government share (sometimes overlapping, other times not) law enforcement duties. The upshot was that most federal law only applies to those places where Congress has jurisdiction, and the list of those places excludes the fifty Union member states, except in places within the states that were either reserved to the federal government (as were large swaths of land in territories that became western states), or surrendered in totality to the federal government by a state (such as Washington D.C.). The publication was about the territorial limits of the the authority of Congress and its laws. Offhand, I do not even recall the name (and don’t believe I still have a copy – it is rare in the extreme, and I have never seen another copy of it in the four decades or so after I became acquainted with it – was it “Federal Jurisdiction Within the States”?).
Years ago, the Congressional Research Service wrote a very interesting manual at the behest of Congress. In 1998, the American Bar Association counted more than 3,300 separate federal criminal offenses on the books, more than 40% of which had been enacted in just the past 30 years… Today, the Congressional Research Service says it no longer can even say how many federal crimes exist. –THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONSĪmerica started out with three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. The Constitution of the United States delegated to the Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever. The proper way to resolve this problem is, I fear, too radical (in all senses of that word) for most people:
So technically this is no different… except that two jurisdictions now get serial access to prosecute you instead of parallel access. People get hit with multiple charges for a single act even on the local level, because that act violated multiple laws.