Jaansher Gondal, who is 20 years old, and Leslie Harold Taylor, Jr., who is 44 years old, were arrested on Friday, June 24 for their roles in straw purchasing a firearm from a Rutland area firearms dealer, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. The two Rutland men appeared in federal court June 27 before U.S Magistrate Judge Kevin J. Doyle and were temporarily detained pending detention hearings later this week.
According to documents in the case, on June 22, Gondal arranged for Taylor to purchase a handgun from a federal firearms dealer. Taylor asserted on an ATF background check form that the Glock handgun was for him when, in fact, it was for Gondal. At the time of the purchase, Gondal was aware he could not legally purchase a handgun because he was under 21 years old and requested Taylor’s assistance in obtaining the handgun in exchange for cash.
If convicted, both men face up to 10 years of imprisonment. Any sentence in the case will be advised by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Categories: Crime
Sounds like they broke the law, lock’em up …………………………………
Marbury vs Madison
“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
Up to ten years in prison? Change that to up to ten minutes in prison and I’ll believe it.
They shall “escape” justice.
The law is unconstitutional in the first place.
When is Hunter going to get 10 years in the can for lying on BATFE 4473
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2022/06/29/nh-sanctuary-state-2-n59847
ALL GUN CONTROL UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL! Government does not give us our rights. Our rights are not given to us by the Constitution. Our rights are given to us by God and are inherent to us as human beings and by the Laws of Nature. These rights that we are born with are affirmed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution and specify what the government can and cannot do to us as citizens of the United States. Government’s only power is the power which is enumerated to it by the Constitution. The federal government, a state, county or town cannot pass a law contrary to the Constitution. Article 6 the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. Under our Constitution the government is not delegated the authority to legislate, enforce, or adjudicate laws pertaining to the exercise of our rights under the Constitution – Period. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to require the government’s permission to exercise any right affirmed to us under the Constitution. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to compel us to waive our guaranteed 4th Amendment right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation, search, or seizure in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct. Or compel us to waive our guaranteed 5th Amendment right to due process as a precondition to being allowed (or denied) the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. This violation of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights happens every time that we are interrogated under penalty of perjury without probable cause that a crime has been committed when we fill out B.A.T.F.E form 4473 to purchase a firearm. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to compel us to waive our 10th Amendment right to a federal government exercising only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution, and State governments are prohibited the exercise of any power prohibited to the States by the United States Constitution.
The government is not delegated the authority under the 14th Amendment to make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Government is not delegated by our Constitution the authority to license firearm dealers or operate or fund the most powerful anti-rights government agency on the planet called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Since no Amendment in the Bill of Rights has been repealed thru Article V or by a National Convention of States, the only legal way to change the Constitution, all existing gun control laws presently violate five Amendments of the Bill of Rights and goes against the settled law of two Supreme Court decisions, Heller vs the District of Columbia 2008 and McDonald vs Chicago 2010. Both decisions affirm that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that citizens are allowed firearms in common use, those small arms or those that operate like them and are issued to our National Guard which comprises of citizen soldiers.
The purpose of compelled background checks as a precondition to allowing or denying the transfer of a firearm is to deceive firearm owners and prospective owners into unknowingly waiving their rights guaranteed by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th and 14th Amendments so they will have no rights left to claim when the government decides to register and confiscate our firearms. We have a right to keep and bear arms, not a privilege to keep and bear arms. Our rights are beyond the reach of the government and no citizen has to ask government permission to exercise a right. Government has no authority delegated to it by the Constitution to deceive its citizens into waiving their rights or acquiescing to the loss of their rights by subterfuge, scam, fraud, or force.
Hello?!?
You don’t know what you are talking about..
What they did is illegal, plain and simple.
You cannot purchase a firearm and then transfer it to another person…21 yrs of age to buy a handgun in the USA- federal law…
Look at the BATF form- they ask the question if the purchase is for you or another person.
Contrary. YOU don’t know what you are talking about.
The Constitution is the framework of this country, it’s what all laws are based upon, and it supersedes all other statutes/laws. Natural law or God’s law is what the Constitution is based upon and what the Constitution has penned into law. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you must be of this age to protect yourself. Do little children not have the right to strike another if their safety is in jeopardy? By your understanding of the “law” this would be prohibited because they aren’t old enough.
The Constitution was framed around John Locke’s philosophies and can be more understood by you if you were to read “The Second Treatise of Government”.
“Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are “life, liberty, and property.”
“Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.” ~ John Locke.
https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html
Just look at the recent rulings of the Supreme court, the time for reigning in on the laws/statutes that have been plaguing our nation for decades has come. It’s time for you to understand the true freedom that American’s have fought and died for.
Please do some reading and understand that the “education” that you were given or even paid for was purposefully devoid of the understanding of freedom, at least before you go calling others out saying that they don’t know what they are talking about.
ALL GUN CONTROL UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL! What utter and complete nonsense. First of all the world ‘gun’ does not appear in the constitution. The word that does appear is ‘arms’, and there are lots of laws restricting arms. Try buying your own tank and a supply of depleted uranium rounds and see just how far the ‘right to bare arms’ goes.
Welcome to the ‘tree of knowledge’, Abraham’s Sacrifice, and the Judgment of Solomon. It is the paradox of personal responsibility. When we are enslaved, we demand freedom. When we are free, we are enslaved by our personal responsibility to prosper.
The so-called ‘American Experiment’, and its Constitution, is, at its heart and mind, metaphysical. It’s not just a consideration of ‘individualism’ (i.e., autonomy) verses ‘the collective’ (a group of individuals viewed as a whole). It’s a question… constant questions… infinite questions. And, always, questions of balance. After all, everything (even the Universe) is relative to something else.
And these issues are nothing new. From Abraham to King Solomon to Moses and the Buddha, to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. To Lucretius, Jesus Christ, and Mohammad. To Galileo, Da Vinci, and Newton. To Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Adam Smith. To Ben Franklin, George Washington, Madison, and Hamilton. We are all trying to make sense of our universe. We must decide whether or not to take the high road or the low road… the road less traveled or to merely sit still. Questions, questions, and more questions.
Communication is the key. As is the understanding that perfection is always just ahead, on the horizon, never to be fully grasped. Is a bird in the hand always worth two in the bush? How do we best answer these questions without destroying ourselves with disagreement?
Again, consider the ‘American Experiment’… the elegance of our Constitution. The combined wisdom of our founders, and those who preceded them.
An individual’s right to ‘bear arms’ is unequivocal…. it “… shall not be infringed’.
And while it is pertinent to note that the SCOTUS, and other lower courts, have already ‘infringed’ on this right to bear arms, their judgment is not beyond reproach. The proverbial camel’s nose of collective authoritarianism poking under the tent of our individual freedom.
So, why shouldn’t an individual have a compact nuclear explosive device in a brief case to protect themselves from others with the same capability? So far, on whatever road one travels, the ‘balance’ of a MAD deterrent (Mutually Assured Destruction) has been successful. Nonetheless, ‘past performance is never a guaranty of future results’.
Be it a club compared to a spear… a spear compared to stone and sling, to a bow and arrow, … to a crossbow, a catapult, a flintlock, a repeating rifle, a Glock 9mm, a hand grenade, an AR-15, a machine gun, an RPG, a tank, or even ‘depleted uranium’ ammunition. If we can’t trust ourselves to act responsibly with these ‘defensive’ weapons, why do we trust anyone?
Is it because they are ‘chosen’? If so, by whom? By what criteria? What credential? And what guaranty is there the chosen one will always act in the best interest of everyone else? CAN they act in the best interest of everyone? Or will they find themselves forced to ‘split the baby’ from time to time?
So, the question regarding the 2nd amendment right to bear arms isn’t the right to bear them. It’s the right to NOT bear them, that comes into question. Or, the logical progression of that issue, the right to prevent everyone else from bearing arms… any arms.
As with the prospect of our combined safety from an evil/confused person, intent on harming others (for whatever reason), are we safer in a so-called ‘gun-free’ zone, when only the ‘bad guy’ is armed? Or are we safer because of the prospect a their mutually assured destruction? The data to date supports the later.
My current position is this: Unless and until someone can prove that they can prevent anyone and everyone from bearing any arms, I reserve the right – and the responsibility – to have ‘arms’, whatever they may be. This is not to say that I will, necessarily, do so. But having the right to do so is, I suspect, as sufficient a deterrent as I can have to defend myself and my family as there is.
https://aerocorner.com/blog/can-you-buy-a-tank/ – Hint you can buy a tank.
We have enough gun laws on the books but they are of no use if they are not enforced, give them 10yrs and start cracking down on the criminals instead of making more laws to punish the innocent.
The purpose of compelled background checks as a precondition to allowing or denying the transfer of a firearm is to deceive firearm owners and prospective owners into unknowingly waiving their rights guaranteed by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th and 14th Amendments so they will have no rights left to claim when the government decides to register and confiscate our firearms. We have a right to keep and bear arms, not a privilege to keep and bear arms. Our rights are beyond the reach of the government and no citizen has to ask government permission to exercise a right. Government has no authority delegated to it by the Constitution to deceive its citizens into waiving their rights or acquiescing to the loss of their rights by subterfuge, scam, fraud, or force.
OMG They lied on the 4473!! What about Hunter B he did too.
If neither of them have a criminal record and are otherwise Law Abiding Americans, they broke no laws. The illegal and unconstitutional shams that Scott signed have no legal standing.
The 2nd Amendment is clear. Moreover, the 20 year old is mature enough according to Scott to serve in the U.S. Military where he would be required to be trained and use Firearms.
And according to Scott and his support of Prop 5 Article 22, if the 20 year old was 5 and decided he no longer wanted to be a He, Scott and ever other Vermonter that supports that insanity would be screaming, ” They are mature enough ! ” If you tried to stop them and protect your child, the child would be taken from you and you would be jailed.
Seems quite clear, Scott isn’t mature enough to make illegal laws.
The 20 year old and his friend broke no laws.
You are incorrect… 21 yrs old to purchase handguns in USA. Federal law…
Please see the responses above…
Interesting, “temporarily detained” for a non violent, non crime…meanwhile violent repeat offenders get the frequent flyer catch and release treatment…hmmm. This once great state is completely backwards.
could there be more to this story??? me wonders??
a quik google search; “some results have been removed” does have a fb page….(the younger one)
What’s the rush to get a handgun?
Because it is an equalizer.
Most Americans, including myself have no problem with MOST of the Federal gun laws on the books such as the ones that ban straw purchasing, purchases or possession by convicted felons and prohibiting sales to undocumented invaders. We can debate whether a sawed-off shotgun should be allowed, since that really is a good home defense firearm. This case sounds like a deliberate straw purchase and should be vigorously prosecuted. What would become obvious if we prosecuted ALL Federal gun violations to the letter, that there would be NO NEED for any additional restrictions. We wont know unless we try. Also, ANYONE who is federally prohibited from possessing a firearm should also be prohibited from voting in any election, even locally. Vermont allows convicted criminals doing life without parole to vote, although we can’t blame the current crop of moonbat liberal politicians for that.
“you can buy a tank”. But only one that has the ability to fire rounds if you have a Federally issues destructive devices permit. Got one?