Supreme Court sides with gun control groups on straw purchase law

[Mreed911]

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.

Except that he wasn't. Go back and read the order of events. He was buying on behalf of his uncle the entire time. He prearranged the sale. He was paid by his uncle for the sale before he made the purchase. He then made the purchase after everything had been prearranged and transferred the weapon. At the time he made the purchase he had no intention of being the owner of the weapon at any point in time.

 

[Big Dipper]

Except that he wasn't. Go back and read the order of events. He was buying on behalf of his uncle the entire time. He prearranged the sale. He was paid by his uncle for the sale before he made the purchase. He then made the purchase after everything had been prearranged and transferred the weapon. At the time he made the purchase he had no intention of being the owner of the weapon at any point in time.

and he then answered the question "Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you." Yes.

 

[Recoil45]

Except that he wasn't. Go back and read the order of events. He was buying on behalf of his uncle the entire time. He prearranged the sale. He was paid by his uncle for the sale before he made the purchase. He then made the purchase after everything had been prearranged and transferred the weapon. At the time he made the purchase he had no intention of being the owner of the weapon at any point in time.

In my example I wasn't planning to be the owner either. I was planning to sell it to my brother at another FFL.

 

[Renegade]

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.

Well I guess if you cannot understand this simple example in the instructions of the 4473, then perhaps you should NOT be buying guns from FFLS.

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 11a. The liensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones.

What Abramksi did was so text book illegal all I have to do is change the names and nothing else and he fits the example 100%.

ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Alvarez asks Mr. Abramski to purchase a firearm for Mr. Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez gives Mr. Abramski the money for the firearm. Mr. Abramski is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer "NO" to question 11a. The liensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Abramski .

 

[Renegade]

Were throwing one of our own under the bus here.

Not unless you think we are bank robbers and thieves and liars.

 

[Recoil45]

Well I guess if you cannot understand this simple example in the instructions of the 4473, then perhaps you should NOT be buying guns from FFLS.

I'll continue to buy, but how and when I sell will be forever changed.

 

[Renegade]

I'll continue to buy, but how and when I sell will be forever changed.

Well when you sell make sure you get a Bill of Sale to protect yourself!

 

[Recoil45]

My fail proof plan is to ensure the sale takes place at an FFL do there is no suspicion of a straw purchase.

 

[Mreed911]

In my example I wasn't planning to be the owner either. I was planning to sell it to my brother at another FFL.

In his case the arrangement was already made and paid for. In your case it wasn't. You assumed ownership even if your brother didn't re-buy it from you. His uncle had already bought it from him pending his purchase.

 

[Mreed911]

My fail proof plan is to ensure the sale takes place at an FFL do there is no suspicion of a straw purchase.

That didn't work here because even though the second purchase took place at an FFL in the uncle's state, the convicted offense was lying on the first sale's 4473. The easy answer is to truthfully answer 11a on 4473 and don't put yourself in a situation where your answer to 11a would have to be a lie to complete the purchase.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

How about it is a ridiculous stipulation to begin with. If the court can't recognize that, then screw it.

 

[Mreed911]

How about it is a ridiculous stipulation to begin with. If the court can't recognize that, then screw it.

That's a good summary of what started all this in the first place... and the results.

 

[Recoil45]

In his case the arrangement was already made and paid for. In your case it wasn't. You assumed ownership even if your brother didn't re-buy it from you. His uncle had already bought it from him pending his purchase.

With this ruling, my posts in this thread would probably be enough to make the case that this was pre-planned and therefore a straw purchase.

 

[Recoil45]

Well I guess if you cannot understand this simple example in the instructions of the 4473, then perhaps you should NOT be buying guns from FFLS.

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 11a. The liensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones.

What Abramksi did was so text book illegal all I have to do is change the names and nothing else and he fits the example 100%.

ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Alvarez asks Mr. Abramski to purchase a firearm for Mr. Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez gives Mr. Abramski the money for the firearm. Mr. Abramski is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer "NO" to question 11a. The liensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Abramski .

You make it sound like he went out into the parking lot and handed the gun to another person. That is reason the law was created. He didn't. He went to another FFL and transferred the gun legally.


PS: last post from me in this tread

 

[Renegade]

You make it sound like he went out into the parking lot and handed the gun to another person. That is reason the law was created. He didn't. He went to another FFL and transferred the gun legally.

He did EXACTLY what the directions said you CANNOT do.

 

[ROGER4314]

The Bloomberg media is trumpeting about a "victory" in the Supreme Court. I have a way of cutting through the crap and I'll do that now.

The purchaser left a clear paper trail that proved that he lied on his 4473 form and intended all along to obtain a discount on the Glock and immediately transfer it to his relative. Scrape everything else away and what is left.....he lied on the 4473 and provided real/hard proof that he violated the law. He convicted himself!

Now, he has a Federal felony conviction which disqualifies him from purchasing firearms. That disqualification is why he pursued the case all the way to the Supreme Court. He tried to overturn the conviction on a technicality and lost. I see his point about the final recipient of the pistol being a lawful citizen but he still lied on the 4473. There's no disputing that fact.

Flash

 

[Big Dipper]

Just to repeat another way:

He even acknowledged that he falsified the answer.

Directly from the SCOTUS opinion, 'He argued that his misrepresentation on Question 11.a. was not 'material to the lawfulness of the sale'..."

 

[robertc1024]

 

[TheDan]

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.

This raises an interesting point... If 9 judges can't agree on the application, execution, or validity of a law, why should that law be allowed to stand? We need to be erroring on the side of liberty.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Stupid law, stupid to keep records, stupid ruling.