Gun Zone Deals

Supreme Court sides with gun control groups on straw purchase law

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Mreed911

    TGT Addict
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Apr 18, 2013
    7,315
    21
    Austin, TX
    While there's certainly a lot to discuss here in terms of the Supreme Court upholding "the federal government’s elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements," the actual case at hand seems like a "duh!" moment, especially for a (former) police officer potentially abusing Glock's Blue Label program.

    Supreme Court sides with gun control groups on straw purchase law | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour

    Essentially, the following happened:


    1. Nephew offers to purchase Glock for uncle in another state under blue label pricing
    2. Uncle sends nephew a check for the Glock, noting it's for the Glock in the memo line
    3. Nephew purchases Glock, listing himself as the actual buyer on the purchase form
    4. Nephew delivers to uncle (one article at another source states he did this through an FFL in PA, but I can't verify that this is actually true)

    The whole thing was found out when the nephew was suspected in a bank robbery case, his house searched, and items recovered, including the receipt to the uncle for the handgun, etc. It should be noted that all bank robbery charges were dropped and other sources online that I've read make the bank robbery search (based on a warrant) seem reasonable on its face, but the found evidence just didn't add up to him being the robber and too many other plausible stories existed to link anything found to the robbery.
    Hurley's Gold
     

    Mikeinhistory

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Feb 19, 2013
    1,141
    31
    Austin, TX
    Why wouldn't be allowed to transfer through an FFL? I can understand not letting people buy for an unknown third party, but if they go through an FFL aren't they literally following the law? Anyway, that article leaves a lot of unanswered questions. They found out what he was doing because he was a suspect in a bank robbery? But then he wasn't. Sounds like he's made enemies and they were looking for something.
     

    Mreed911

    TGT Addict
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Apr 18, 2013
    7,315
    21
    Austin, TX
    Why wouldn't be allowed to transfer through an FFL? I can understand not letting people buy for an unknown third party, but if they go through an FFL aren't they literally following the law?

    They made the point about at the time of purchase. Since they could document he'd already offered to sell - and had been paid for by - a third party, they're claiming he lied about 11a on the 4473. His appeal didn't deny that - he pled guilty pending appeal - instead focusing on whether 11a was even a valid question when both parties were lawful owners. Very complicated case/appeal in that he didn't say he didn't lie - he said lying shouldn't matter because it didn't lead to the crime intended to be prevented from actually being prevented because he wasn't engaged in transferring a firearm to an illegal buyer.

    Anyway, that article leaves a lot of unanswered questions. They found out what he was doing because he was a suspect in a bank robbery? But then he wasn't. Sounds like he's made enemies and they were looking for something.

    From what I read, here was the deal:


    1. Bank robbery 23 miles away a few days prior to his purchase. $4,000-ish in cash taken.
    2. He goes into police supply store, buys gun and other stuff for $2,000, paying with cash from a green bank bag.
    3. His wife used to be an employee of the bank.
    4. (some other stuff inferred but I can't find documented, likely related to robbery video footage)
    5. FBI gets search warrant, recovers bank bag from the robbed bank, which contained the receipt from the uncle for the handgun purchased with cash (how they found out about the 4473, I'd guess, tracking the sale back).
    6. Footage of robbery, however, doesn't involve a bank bag during the robbery.
    7. Wife, who used to work at bank, got bank bag as part of bank giveaway/promotion to employees and public, so possession wasn't tied to robbery.
    8. (some other stuff, including alibi, I'd imagine)
    9. State charges are dropped without prejudice for lack of cause.
    10. Federal charges are announced several days later for the falsification of 4473.
    11. Guilty plea in exchange for 5yrs of probation (on two federal felonies with up to 10 yr sentencing), noted as pending appeal.
    12. During/after investigation, he makes wild, threatening statements about killing or harming police, vendettas, etc. He's a "former" police officer at this point already, so something else happened w.r.t. his LEO career already.
    13. At some point (I'm unclear on the timeline) his house is up for repo, car is repo'ed, wife leaves him, etc. Lots of volatility.

    Sources:

    Bank robbery charges are dropped, for now - The Franklin News Post
    Former Roanoke police officer faces new charges - Roanoke.com
    Former Roanoke police officer denied bond - Roanoke.com
     

    Mreed911

    TGT Addict
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Apr 18, 2013
    7,315
    21
    Austin, TX
    And before anyone asks, gifts are absolutely permissible, as long as they're not actually "purchases on behalf of." From Form 4473 11a:

    You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.

    It goes on to give an example which almost perfectly matches what happened HERE:

    Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smits. Mr. Smith gives Mr.Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is not the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and must answer "NO" to question 11 a... however if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer "YES" to question 11 a.
     

    Mreed911

    TGT Addict
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Apr 18, 2013
    7,315
    21
    Austin, TX
    Bill of sale bit him in the posterior region including the check memo section listing detail about the transaction.

    AND folks still want to do them.

    It absolutely looks like they worked backwards from the receipt, finding the cancelled check/memo line, as well.
     

    Mikeinhistory

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Feb 19, 2013
    1,141
    31
    Austin, TX
    The letter of the law, not the spirit. Thanks for clearing it up for me. I'm not sure how it should really matter that he technically lied on the form, meaning that the gun was eventually destined for his uncle. He was the one buying it and for practical reasons the Uncle was simply buying it from him. Especially if they went through an FFL. I could sort of understand their argument if they did an FTF or something but this all seems ridiculous. The bank thing just makes it smell of personal vendetta.

    And then the whole thing got kicked up to the supreme court, and they took it as a chance to make an example rather then be rational.
     

    Mreed911

    TGT Addict
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Apr 18, 2013
    7,315
    21
    Austin, TX
    And then the whole thing got kicked up to the supreme court, and they took it as a chance to make an example rather then be rational.

    By the defendant, with differing lower Federal court opinions in conflict - exactly what our Supreme Court is supposed to do.

    I have a SERIOUS problem, though, with the Supreme Court upholding this in the face of the plain language of 2A, hence my original comment about the majority opinion supporting "the federal government’s elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements." I don't know how that continues to reconcile.
     

    Ranger60

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 28, 2008
    710
    31
    Taylor
    Straw purchases have been illegal for a long time. When I was a dealer attended ATF seminars on them. Use someone else's money to purchase a gun is a straw purchase. Very simple, very clear. These guys left a money trail, that was where they messed up. Whether or not the final owner was or was not a prohibited person has no bearing at all.
     

    matefrio

    ΔΕΞΑΙ
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 19, 2010
    11,249
    31
    Missouri, Texas Consulate HQ
    I do believe that gun transfer to person who is not prohibited, FFL or NO FLL should't be regulated. SCOUTS took the letter of the law and didn't use strict scrutiny in this case.

    The question was "Should this law exist IF non prohibited persons are involved" not if the guy disobeyed an arbitrary law (in this case straw purchases).


    IF SCOTUS held that the 2nd Amendment deserved Strict Scrutiny they would have struck down the law all together.
     
    Last edited:

    Mreed911

    TGT Addict
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Apr 18, 2013
    7,315
    21
    Austin, TX
    Whether or not the final owner was or was not a prohibited person has no bearing at all.

    SCOTUS agrees - that was their finding. The approach for the appeal was interesting, to say the least. My understanding is that it's essentially "that provision was put in for people buying for prohibited persons and applying it to purchases for non-prohibited persons is overly-broad application, which is illegal in and of itself, so an illegal law is null/void."
     

    shortround

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 24, 2011
    6,624
    31
    Grid 0409
    Had he bought the gun, then given it as a gift to an eligible recipient without an exchange of money or any other form of payment, he'd be on solid ground.

    As it was, he conspired to purchase the firearm at his discount price, then took payment from the other party for whom he purchased the firearm.

    Letter of the law applies.

    "Beneficient Intent" is no defense.
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    Also, had he negotiated with selling FFL for the price (and verified quality, condition, etc.) and arranged for selling FFL to ship to receiving FFL (uncle's) with Unc paying all of the costs there would have been no problem either.

    SCOTUS has already determined that some laws that "limit" rights delineated in the Constitution are valid (libel and 1A for example, Terry stop frisks and 4A, etc). They have apparently decided that the law that specifically bars ALL straw purchases is a "reasonable" limitation to 2A. And, that falsifying an answer to question 11 is a crime.
     
    Last edited:

    Ranger60

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 28, 2008
    710
    31
    Taylor
    That is about it, read the 4473, by signing it you state that all answers are true and that false statements are a prosecutable felony. Now, if you can make false statements on a 4473 and it is OK because of the circumstances is it also OK to make false statements on your tax return, on a federal job application, on a food stamp application, etc. just to suit your circumstances. As is always the case, ignorance is not an excuse. The 4473 instructions are very clear in very simple language that this was an illegal transaction. Now, I do feel bad for these guys, but they did it, no one made them. We can debate the validity of the law forever, but that does not change the facts.
     

    Mexican_Hippie

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 4, 2009
    12,288
    21
    Fort Worth
    If they were doing their jobs they would have ruled the 4473 unconstitutional.


    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1402977289.142574.jpg
     

    RetArmySgt

    Glad to be back.
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 14, 2009
    4,705
    31
    College Station
    We can get criminals who cant own guns that lie on 4473s tried but we can sure in the **** try persons who can legally own firearms. The ATF and FBI refuse to go after felons who lie on the 4473 claiming they dont have the funds to do it.
     

    oldguy

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 6, 2008
    1,891
    46
    I believe one of the justice said this(straw purchase) defeats the ability of government to track a gun, where does that thought lead us with private sales, IMO in time all sales will be required to go through a dealer.
     

    matefrio

    ΔΕΞΑΙ
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 19, 2010
    11,249
    31
    Missouri, Texas Consulate HQ
    I believe one of the justice said this(straw purchase) defeats the ability of government to track a gun, where does that thought lead us with private sales, IMO in time all sales will be required to go through a dealer.
    Yes, but 4 dissented strongly.

    "Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas."

    "
    The Scalia opinion argued that the federal background-checking scheme simply does not apply to a gun purchase when both the person at the counter paying for the weapon and the person for whom the gun is being bought are legally eligible to have it."
     
    Top Bottom