Abramski Conviction Upheld

[Renegade]

SCOTUS Upheld Abramski. Usual split witg Kennedy joining the libtards.

Another JackWagon who kept records and demanded a Bill of Sale win.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

 

[NavyVet1959]

Sometimes the SCOTUS is right, sometimes they are blatantly wrong. When they have liberals in control, they are usually wrong. Of course, they rule on a narrow portion of the case, not on the broader portion (i.e. whether the underlying law is actually constitutional). Many of us are old enough to remember a time before the there were rules against "straw purchases".

I suspect that a good part of the problem is that the justices tend to be predominantly Yankees and as such, are more inclined to leftist leanings.

I'm curious though how the original incident came to the attention of the government anyway.

I looked it up and I found the following:

http://bearingarms.com/abramski-cas...nnical-drive-for-universal-background-checks/

Bruce Abramski is a former cop who is legally allowed to buy firearms. His uncle Angel Alvarez, can also legally buy firearms. Abramski purchased a Glock 19 pistol from a dealer using his law enforcement discount to get a better price, then sold the gun to his uncle. Both transfers—from the Virginia FFL to Abramski, then from Abramski through another FFL to Alvarez in Pennsylvania—followed the law.

It appears that he went through an FFL for BOTH transactions.

Using that logic, it would be illegal if someone had a particular firearm that they were not willing to sell, but would only trade for another particular firearm and you went and bought that firearm just so you could do the trade, even if both transactions went through an FFL. I've actually seen that happen before.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Not sure why straw purchases should be illegal if it's for someone who can legally own a firearm. Is this more of the "common sense" I keep hearing about?

SCOTUS = LOGIC FAIL

 

[winchster]

This is bad news

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

I'm curious though how the original incident came to the attention of the government anyway.

The original incident started with a search of his home related to a bank robbery. They found his receipts, could not find gun, and since he was a cop and had nothing to hide told them.

When folks are going to learn to STFU and not get keep records, I do not know.

 

[Renegade]

Not sure why straw purchases should be illegal if it's for someone who can legally own a firearm. Is this more of the "common sense" I keep hearing about?

SCOTUS = LOGIC FAIL

He lied on the form, that was the issue.

 

[winchster]

He lied on the form, that was the issue.

Maybe he decided to sell it to the uncle later? Lol
I just don't see how this was illegal since both transactions filled or a 4473 and passed nics.
My problem with it is, atf didn't interpret this rule this way until recently. I have a hard time with policy making law instead of the legislature.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[pharmaco]

The way they're talking about it on the news makes it seem that they've basically made private transfers illegal.

Not true, obviously, but what DOES this mean?

Firearms as gifts are now illegal?

 

[Renegade]

Maybe he decided to sell it to the uncle later? Lol
I just don't see how this was illegal since both transactions filled or a 4473 and passed nics.

Lying on forms is illegal. His nephew wrote "for Glock 19" on the check. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Renegade]

The way they're talking about it on the news makes it seem that they've basically made private transfers illegal.

Not true, obviously, but what DOES this mean?

Means do not accept money from others to buy guns for them.

 

[winchster]

Lying on forms is illegal. His nephew wrote "for Glock 19" on the check. Stupid is as stupid does.

Ah. And the check was written prior to the initial purchase I assume? idiot.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

Ah. And the check was written prior to purchase initially I assume? idiot.

Yep.

 

[robertc1024]

Check? Idiot.

 

[Flyingswords]

always pay cash for firearms. I do

 

[NavyVet1959]

Ah. And the check was written prior to the initial purchase I assume? idiot.

Now, looking back, that would make it completely idiotic, but it's entirely possible that he truly believed that what he was doing was perfectly legal since he was going through an FFL for BOTH of the transactions.

If he had bought the gun, fired it, decided he didn't like it, and then sold it to his uncle, then he would have been perfectly legal. They would have to prove that he did not buy the gun for himself initially. In other words, they would have to provide copies of the recordings that the NFA makes of all of our phone calls and emails.

I suspect that many of us have had firearms given to us as gifts, especially when we were young. The ATF creates administrative rules with no legislative oversight and has gotten out of control. Unfortunately, the ATF is not alone in this abuse of power. Congress needs to address this tendency of agencies creating administrative rules that have the effect of law.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Congress needs to disband the ATF just to be safe.

 

[TXARGUY]

Serious question, is it not legally possible for a person to buy a firearm as a gift for another person anymore? Say I want to buy my dad, who is fully legally allowed to purchase one for himself, a .22 pistol for his birthday, am I committing a Federal crime in doing so? Is it considered a straw purchase?

I have thought, wrongly it seems, that straw purchases involved buying a firearm in the place of (as a stand in for) a person who is not legally allowed to buy/own one.

 

[Big Dipper]

Several news reports do point out that buying as a gift or for the purposes of a raffle is and has been legal. This decision does not alter that.

The opinion even cites the instructions for Question 11.

The accompanying instructions for that question provide: “Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself . . . .

You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. 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.” Id., at 4.

 

[Ranger60]

The issue is that the final owner paid for the gun prior to the original buyer making the purchase. It is a matter of where the money came from. That is what make it an illegal straw purchase. If the original buyer paid for it with his own money, then sold it, with the final owner paying him at that time, that would have been legal. It is also legal to purchase with your money then give the gun to someone as a gift, again, no problem. These guys messed up with a money trail. Had the original buyer walked into the store and said "hey, my uncle who is not a prohibited person gave me this money to buy him a gun", which is the case, though not explicitly stated, he would have been escorted out the door by any legitimate dealer. To repeat, it's the money trail!

 

[winchster]

Ah. And the check was written prior to the initial purchase I assume? idiot.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Ok, having now read the entire opinion, I retract that statement, and agree wholeheartedly with Justice Scalia.

[size=+1]"So if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store “sells” the milk and eggs to me.2 And even if we were prepared to let “principles of agency law” trump ordinary English usage in the interpretation of this criminal statute, those principles would not require a different result."[/size]



This is a bad ruling for us as gun owners. It sets up a precedent that the "end owner" MUST be identified.