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:
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.
Supreme Court sides with gun control groups on straw purchase law | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour
Essentially, the following happened:
- Nephew offers to purchase Glock for uncle in another state under blue label pricing
- Uncle sends nephew a check for the Glock, noting it's for the Glock in the memo line
- Nephew purchases Glock, listing himself as the actual buyer on the purchase form
- 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.