Supreme Court sides with gun control groups on straw purchase law

[grumper]

If he had just bought the damn thing and given it to his uncle as an early Christmas gift, or kept it for a day and then sold it he'd have been in the clear and the bill of sale wouldn't have mattered, and he wouldn't have committed perjury on the 4473.

I hope the LE discount he got was worth it. Bunch of idiocy all around in this case.

 

[matefrio]

Also
Abramski bought the gun via FFL and passed his checks

They then went to PA and with is uncle to ANOTHER FFL and his Uncle passed 'HIS" checks

The original FFL said it was OK to do this.

 

[grumper]

The original FFL said it was OK to do this.

Did the original FFL know the buyer was paying for it with the other guy's money?

That's what got the dude convicted.

If he had bought it with his own money for himself to give to his uncle as a gift and asked the FFL to transfer it to the uncle's local dealer there wouldn't have been any issues. In this case when the FFL said it would be OK it's true.

 

[Mreed911]

" 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."

Okay, I'll play along, only to see where this goes (hint: not trolling). How are either person at the counter supposed to know the buyer is legal to have it? In other words, when WOULD the federal background checking scheme be useful/required based solely on the quote above? "Hey, I'm not sure I'm legal to own, can you background check me?" The only thing different from a person-to-person sale is that the seller is a federally licensed dealer... so help me understand the above quote.

I think I agree in principle with what Scalia is saying. I just don't know that he said it well.

 

[matefrio]

Okay, I'll play along, only to see where this goes (hint: not trolling). How are either person at the counter supposed to know the buyer is legal to have it? In other words, when WOULD the federal background checking scheme be useful/required based solely on the quote above? "Hey, I'm not sure I'm legal to own, can you background check me?" The only thing different from a person-to-person sale is that the seller is a federally licensed dealer... so help me understand the above quote.

I think I agree in principle with what Scalia is saying. I just don't know that he said it well.

Let's compare this case to voting rights.

Law passed that a person must know how to read before registering to vote.

Joe knows how to read, goes and registers for is uncle Jake and Jake Votes.

Joe gets caught, and found guilty of fraud on the voter registration.

Joe's lawyers fight the law saying that there never should have been the requirement in the first place as Jake had the right to vote.

Seems to me some folks here are still holler'n that Joe deserved to be found guilty.

Other folks are saying this is much ado about nothing and ignore that Jake still can't vote.

Scalia is taking the side the right person voted so Joe didn't break the law.

 

[Mreed911]

Thanks for that reply, Matefrio. I can follow the thought process now, but I'm going to need some time to think through the comparison.

 

[winchster]

OK, I said in another thread that the guy was an idiot for doing it the way he did it. 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.

 

[ScorpionHunter]

OK, I said in another thread that the guy was an idiot for doing it the way he did it. 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.

It sounds like a bad ruling for all sorts of stuff. If you apply this logic to guns, why not everything? Imagine if I'm arrested for buying drugs, and I say that I was buying them for my neighbor and claim that I wasn't the "end owner". Can the neighbor be charged? That makes no sense. This decision was based not on logic, but as a way to ensure the continuation of background checks.

 

[Mreed911]

It sounds like a bad ruling for all sorts of stuff. If you apply this logic to guns, why not everything? Imagine if I'm arrested for buying drugs, and I say that I was buying them for my neighbor and claim that I wasn't the "end owner". Can the neighbor be charged? That makes no sense. This decision was based not on logic, but as a way to ensure the continuation of background checks.

Except that's not what it said. His defense wasn't "it was for someone else," it was "the someone else it was for wasn't prohibited, so my conduct wasn't illegal."

I do agree that the decision was made in such a way to not disrupt background checks, which I find morally and ethically wrong given the nature of the laws mandating the checks.

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

No it doesn't. You can still purchase a handgun as a gift for someone. It continues a prohibition on making an end-run around a background check for remuneration so that a prohibited person may obtain a firearm from a licensed dealer. I don't particularly agree that dealers should be held to determine who the purchaser is, though, as I don't believe in de facto registration and hold the actual person possessing the weapon to be the one responsible for determining whether their possession is legal or not and whether they're willing to face the consequences if they possess in violation of the law.

Interestingly, even though a prohibited person wouldn't actually own it, it prevents them from even purchasing a handgun to gift to a non-prohibited person, too.

Let's compare this case to voting rights.

Law passed that a person must know how to read before registering to vote.
Joe knows how to read, goes and registers for is uncle Jake and Jake Votes.
Joe gets caught, and found guilty of fraud on the voter registration.
Joe's lawyers fight the law saying that there never should have been the requirement in the first place as Jake had the right to vote.

Seems to me some folks here are still holler'n that Joe deserved to be found guilty.
Other folks are saying this is much ado about nothing and ignore that Jake still can't vote.
Scalia is taking the side the right person voted so Joe didn't break the law.

Even the defendant didn't argue that he didn't break the law. In your example, though, Joe is in fact willingly violating an unjust law. Typically, an unjust law is no law... but that sequence often requires Joe be arrested and tried so that a finder of fact can find, in fact, the law is unjust. That may happen at trial or on appeal... but Joe is in fact making a decision to break the black letter of the law as it stands.

Again, this is where jury nullification comes into play... and to a lesser degree, attorney general opinions.

Scalia seems to be taking the side of "it shouldn't matter if Joe broke the law because the law wasn't just to begin with, so he can't be guilty of violating an unjust law." At least that's my take... I need to read his full opinion to be sure.

 

[winchster]

Except that's not what it said. His defense wasn't "it was for someone else," it was "the someone else it was for wasn't prohibited, so my conduct wasn't illegal."

I do agree that the decision was made in such a way to not disrupt background checks, which I find morally and ethically wrong given the nature of the laws mandating the checks.



No it doesn't. You can still purchase a handgun as a gift for someone. It continues a prohibition on making an end-run around a background check for remuneration so that a prohibited person may obtain a firearm from a licensed dealer. I don't particularly agree that dealers should be held to determine who the purchaser is, though, as I don't believe in de facto registration and hold the actual person possessing the weapon to be the one responsible for determining whether their possession is legal or not and whether they're willing to face the consequences if they possess in violation of the law.

Interestingly, even though a prohibited person wouldn't actually own it, it prevents them from even purchasing a handgun to gift to a non-prohibited person, too.



Even the defendant didn't argue that he didn't break the law. In your example, though, Joe is in fact willingly violating an unjust law. Typically, an unjust law is no law... but that sequence often requires Joe be arrested and tried so that a finder of fact can find, in fact, the law is unjust. That may happen at trial or on appeal... but Joe is in fact making a decision to break the black letter of the law as it stands.

Again, this is where jury nullification comes into play... and to a lesser degree, attorney general opinions.

Scalia seems to be taking the side of "it shouldn't matter if Joe broke the law because the law wasn't just to begin with, so he can't be guilty of violating an unjust law." At least that's my take... I need to read his full opinion to be sure.

It seemed to me that Scalia was taking the side that, since Joe was buying it at the counter, then Joe was indeed the purchaser (relevant since the nephew was not a prohibited person). Same as the kid with the milk and eggs.

 

[jordanmills]

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.

This case is what changed my mind on them. Paperwork can only hurt you.

 

[Renegade]

It seemed to me that Scalia was taking the side that, since Joe was buying it at the counter, then Joe was indeed the purchaser (relevant since the nephew was not a prohibited person). Same as the kid with the milk and eggs.

That is what i read -> Abramski was the actual buyer. Thus he did not lie on form. This is almost a thought crime, as it presumes Abramski really will give the gun to his uncle. He might not though as the future has not happened yet. Just like the nephew might take the money and buy milk and Oreos for himself instead.

 

[Mreed911]

That is what i read -> Abramski was the actual buyer. Thus he did not lie on form. This is almost a thought crime, as it presumes Abramski really will give the gun to his uncle. He might not though as the future has not happened yet. Just like the nephew might take the money and buy milk and Oreos for himself instead.

No, he had an agreement with the uncle AND payment BEFORE he filled out the 4473. That's what FedGov is using to convict him... prior agreement, so he's purchasing for/on behalf of vs. a "resell" relationship. Had he not agreed to do so and not received payment BEFORE he purchased, he could have resold the next day and claimed "I changed my mind!"

Scalia is pointing out that at the time of purchase he WAS the buyer, with intent to resell to the uncle (already done), since he was physically taking possession and paying with his money (once the uncle writes him a check, it's his, and if he defaults on his promise with the uncle it's a CIVIL matter for an incomplete transaction), much like the "milk and eggs."

It would have been nice to see 11a completely struck, but there's apparently a lot of underlying law they were very, very unwilling to touch.

And, since the non-guilty case is reversed (the guilty case was upheld) between the two federal courts, we won't see a reconsideration that could re-open or untangle this anytime soon.

 

[Renegade]

No, he had an agreement with the uncle AND payment BEFORE he filled out the 4473. That's what FedGov is using to convict him... prior agreement, so he's purchasing for/on behalf of vs. a "resell" relationship. Had he not agreed to do so and not received payment BEFORE he purchased, he could have resold the next day and claimed "I changed my mind!"

No, the agreement is not a crime. Had he not given gun to uncle no crime would have taken place, no matter who gave who money.

 

[ScorpionHunter]

Except that's not what it said. His defense wasn't "it was for someone else," it was "the someone else it was for wasn't prohibited, so my conduct wasn't illegal."

That's true, and it seems that Abramski lost mainly because of the clear trail of intent that he left behind. But I think it's still a problem that the ruling says that even though Abramski stood at the counter and paid the money, he wasn't the "actual" buyer.

 

[Big Dipper]

It seems to me that he lost because he agreed that he made a false statement and tried to argue that it did not matter.

From the SCOTUS decision:

He argued that this misrepresentation on Question 11.a. was not “material to the lawfulness of the sale”

Only if SCOTUS was willing to agree that Scalia was more correct in his determination that the "buyer is the buyer" would Abramski have prevailed.

His conviction was for "for knowingly making false statements 'with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale' of a gun,.."

 

[Mreed911]

No, the agreement is not a crime. Had he not given gun to uncle no crime would have taken place, no matter who gave who money.

Wow. That's an interesting point.

 

[Mreed911]

It seems to me that he lost because he agreed that he made a false statement and tried to argue that it did not matter.

From the SCOTUS decision:


Only if SCOTUS was willing to agree that Scalia was more correct in his determination that the "buyer is the buyer" would Abramski have prevailed.

His conviction was for "for knowingly making false statements 'with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale' of a gun,.."

Thanks for the clarification on that. I hadn't appreciated that nuance... Material to the lawfulness of the sale.

 

[Recoil45]

He used an FFL for the 2nd transfer. The court got this wrong and it has a major impact on all of use. Be careful with future purchases.

 

[Big Dipper]

He used an FFL for the 2nd transfer. The court got this wrong and it has a major impact on all of use. Be careful with future purchases.

And that is why he was not charged with or convicted of illegally transferring a gun out of state.

He was convicted "for knowingly making false statements 'with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale' of a gun,.." And he even agreed that it was a "false statement". He argued that it shouldn't matter and lost that argument by 1 vote.