Supreme Court sides with gun control groups on straw purchase law

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Was the check given to him for the Glock before the purchase? So my question. I buy gun for me, then lose my job next day and I sell it to uncle. Is that straw purchase. Is it because he got the money first for the gun? Obviously the law is crap, but I don't get it either. When is it not a straw purchase? Of I buy a gun to give to my girlfriend, is that a straw purchase?

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Recoil45]

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.

So my brother has been looking for this rare rifle his entire life. I go to a gun show hours away and find it for half the price it should be. I buy it on the spot. I then go home and do the transfer to my brother at a local FFL. I am now guilty of a straw purchase???

It's not what the law was meant for. The guy went out if his way to follow the spirt of the law and keep guns from those who should not own them.

This ruling gives law enforcement the power they need to convict innocent law abiding gun owners of serious crimes.

It's wrong.

 

[Mreed911]

Was the check given to him for the Glock before the purchase? So my question. I buy gun for me, then lose my job next day and I sell it to uncle. Is that straw purchase. Is it because he got the money first for the gun? Obviously the law is crap, but I don't get it either. When is it not a straw purchase? Of I buy a gun to give to my girlfriend, is that a straw purchase?

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk

All of these questions are answered in the thread already.

 

[Recoil45]

Was the check given to him for the Glock before the purchase? So my question. I buy gun for me, then lose my job next day and I sell it to uncle. Is that straw purchase. Is it because he got the money first for the gun? Obviously the law is crap, but I don't get it either. When is it not a straw purchase? Of I buy a gun to give to my girlfriend, is that a straw purchase?

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk

After this ruling you best make sure any gun you buy is held in your possession for many many months before you sell it to another. A few days or weeks can certainly jam you up in a really bad way.

 

[Mreed911]

So my brother has been looking for this rare rifle his entire life. I go to a gun show hours away and find it for half the price it should be. I buy it on the spot. I then go home and do the transfer to my brother at a local FFL. I am now guilty of a straw purchase???

It's not what the law was meant for. The guy went out if his way to follow the spirt of the law and keep guns from those who should not own them.

If you purchase the rifle on behalf of your brother it is a straw purchase. If you buy it as a gift it's not. If you buy it for you, then tell him and he offers to buy it from you, probably not, but it's always subject to someone else's interpretation.

This guy went out of his way to intentionally lie to save money on a Glock for his uncle.

Not that it's relevant to the criminal case, but even lied about being a police officer to secure the blue label discount. At the time of the purchase he was not an active duty police officer. Again, that's not material to the criminal proceeding, but it doesn't help in terms of intent.

 

[Mreed911]

After this ruling you best make sure any gun you buy is held in your possession for many many months before you sell it to another. A few days or weeks can certainly jam you up in a really bad way.

Why? No such precedent has been set here. In this case, the arrangement existed before the purchase. There were even multiple elements of proof including a canceled check, a receipt, and a statement from the uncle.

 

[Recoil45]

I'd being buying it to sell to him at another FFL. I would not be buying it for him. It should be legal. It always was considered legal until this ruling.

 

[Mreed911]

I'd being buying it to sell to him at another FFL. I would not be buying it for him. It should be legal. It always was considered legal until this ruling.

And that's a very nuanced difference. If you are buying it for you to resell, you are the buyer. If you are buying it on behalf of him, you are not the buyer. In this case, the buyer was not in fact the buyer, he admittedly and with documentation was buying on behalf of the uncle because he could get a better price than the uncle could. Had the uncle been the buyer, the price would not have been valid, so the buyer was in fact purchasing on behalf of of, and had already been paid by the third-party for the firearm.

But, like Scalia said, it's all bullshit because in the end it resulted in a non-prohibited person acquiring a weapon. That shouldn't be a crime.

 

[Recoil45]

I would no longer feel safe doing so after this ruling. If you do, that's great.

 

[Big Dipper]

Why? No such precedent has been set here. In this case, the arrangement existed before the purchase. There were even multiple elements of proof including a canceled check, a receipt, and a statement from the uncle.

And, the schmo even agreed that all of these facts existed that make it look like a straw purchase and that he did not honestly answer 11.a.

He tried to argue that the intent of the law was to prevent straw purchases for prohibited persons. 5/4 SCOTUS disagreed and said if you buy a gun as an agent on behalf of any other person and falsely answer 11.a in that circumstance you have violated the law.

 

[Big Dipper]

I'd being buying it to sell to him at another FFL. I would not be buying it for him. It should be legal. It always was considered legal until this ruling.

Not true. Falsifying any answer on form 4473 has always been illegal.

 

[benenglish]

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."

Going off on a slight tangent but pertaining to the wider applicability of the thought process of this decision -

Years ago I tried, failed, and gave up trying to get pornographers and gun owners to understand that they both suffer under authoritarianism and that both sets of people should be fighting together to advance the same principles. The cultural divide, however, was far too wide to bridge.

Think about it, though. This is roughly the same process that all obscenity prosecutions follow. The defendant never says "I didn't make the film." They say "I made the film, but there's nothing illegal about it." Quite literally, no one knows conclusively if a law has been broken until a jury renders a verdict.

It's not good, whether we're dealing with the 1st or the 2nd, to have laws where you can't really know (at least, where the circumstances aren't so obviously such that 9 justices will automatically agree) if a law has been broken or not until a lengthy process of prosecution and appeals has taken place.

Where that's the case, as it is in much USA law these days, something very basic is wrong.

 

[Recoil45]

Not true. Falsifying any answer on form 4473 has always been illegal.

And why would it be falsifying. I'd be the buyer until I legally sold it to him at another FFL. It used to be simple.

 

[Mreed911]

And, the schmo even agreed that all of these facts existed that make it look like a straw purchase and that he did not honestly answer 11.a.

He tried to argue that the intent of the law was to prevent straw purchases for prohibited persons. 5/4 SCOTUS disagreed and said if you buy a gun as an agent on behalf of any other person and falsely answer 11.a in that circumstance you have violated the law.

And this is where the real problem begins. Now it could either be argued that since we already have a de facto gun registration at the time of purchase from a dealer, we should simply use that information to further the goal of insuring prohibited persons don't receive weapons or continue to maintain access to them, or they advance the point that the same rules should apply to sales between private parties, and require FFL intervention for any private sale. It's a very slippery slope.

 

[Mreed911]

Going off on a slight tangent but pertaining to the wider applicability of the thought process of this decision -

Years ago I tried, failed, and gave up trying to get pornographers and gun owners to understand that they both suffer under authoritarianism and that both sets of people should be fighting together to advance the same principles. The cultural divide, however, was far too wide to bridge.

Think about it, though. This is roughly the same process that all obscenity prosecutions follow. The defendant never says "I didn't make the film." They say "I made the film, but there's nothing illegal about it." Quite literally, no one knows conclusively if a law has been broken until a jury renders a verdict.

It's not good, whether we're dealing with the 1st or the 2nd, to have laws where you can't really know (at least, where the circumstances aren't so obviously such that 9 justices will automatically agree) if a law has been broken or not until a lengthy process of prosecution and appeals has taken place.

Where that's the case, as it is in much USA law these days, something very basic is wrong.

Res ipsa loquitor for gun laws?

 

[Mreed911]

And why would it be falsifying. I'd be the buyer until I legally sold it to him at another FFL. It used to be simple.

And still is as long as you don't agree to the sale and get paid first, like this guy did.

 

[Renegade]

So my brother has been looking for this rare rifle his entire life. I go to a gun show hours away and find it for half the price it should be. I buy it on the spot. I then go home and do the transfer to my brother at a local FFL. I am now guilty of a straw purchase???

Did your brother give you the money in advance ask ask you to buy it for him?

Seriously this is really not as hard as some of you want to make it. This ruling changed nothing.

 

[Recoil45]

I fail to see any logic in that argument. This guy ran a background check at another FFL for the 2nd transfer. He was the buyer until he legally sold it to another at an FFL. Were throwing one of our own under the bus here.

 

[Mreed911]

Did your brother give you the money in advance ask ask you to buy it for him?

Seriously this is really not as hard as some of you want to make it. This ruling changed nothing.

Exactly. As long as the conversation is "hey man, I bought that rifle you'd always been looking for.... Would you like to buy it for me? " indicating that you your self purchased the rifle, and were now offering it as part of a separate non-prearranged sale, you would be fine.

I would also think the fact that your purchase would stand alone even if he declined to purchase it from you would bolster that position.

 

[Big Dipper]

And this is where the real problem begins. Now it could either be argued that since we already have a de facto gun registration at the time of purchase from a dealer, we should simply use that information to further the goal of insuring prohibited persons don't receive weapons or continue to maintain access to them, or they advance the point that the same rules should apply to sales between private parties, and require FFL intervention for any private sale. It's a very slippery slope.

I am not in anyway saying that I am in agreement with the majority of 5 in this decision. Scalia presented an outstanding minority position which I believe should have prevailed. Alas, we have what we have at this point and I have merely been trying to pass along the facts and opinions as I understand them.

The line of his argument vs. their decision is a very fine one. There are several ways in which he could have "arranged" this transaction so as to adhere to the letter of the law, even if the result had been the same.