Abramski v U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Straw Purchase case)

Supreme Court Rules against "Straw Purchases"

I am not really surprised by this. The Supreme Court ruled against straw purchases made for people who can legally own firearms. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-guns-straw-purchasers/6180633/

 

Yes.....no surprise.

 

Held it was a straw purchase that violated the law. 5-4 vote (Kagan, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor in the majority, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito dissenting)

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

 

A typical bad SCOTUS decision.
OTOH I have to admit the defendant did lie -- NEVER a good idea on a federal form.

 

That's extremely disappointing.. So once again they prove that registration is the goal not stopping criminals. If I want to purchase a gun for a friend that I've seen pass a dozen background checks because he's out of town and the shop has a gun he wants that's a no no because then they can't trace it. (Remember if he were prohibited there's already a law that prohibits him from receiving a firearm even from a private sale). Well just like the ATF has proven with trying to mass copying dealer records, they want more control and know who has what. And as the old saying goes, registration leads to confiscation.

 

I disagree. It was not a bad court decision. The Court was in favor of what it considered to be a bad law;

“The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it — especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused.” - Scalia.

I am interested in what the more learned members of the forum has to say about the ruling. I interpret him as saying "we don't think the law is sensible but it is constitutional."

 

Lesson: Don't lie on a federal form. Even if you think the rule is stupid.

 

Remember though, it is still perfectly legal to purchase a gun and 5 minutes later decide to private sell it to a friend of yours (in my state anyways). Like many things with gun laws it comes down to intention. If you didn't have the intent to do that when originally purchasing it you're legal.

 

Could this mean an executive order for universal background checks? Just speculating.

 

In its Heller Decision the Court made it clear that they didn't think the 2nd. Amendment was absolute - "shall not be infringed" not withstanding; and that "reasonable restrictions" were allowable. Now we are seeing cases where "reasonable" is going to be defined.

Hopefully those who accept the idea of all private sales being brokered through an FFL will understand what that might lead to when down the road these arms became listed in a federal database. Once recorded they would be subject to ultimate controls and limitations.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
http://mcrkba.org/LudwigCookJAMA.pdf

I'd say Congress rendered Congress's "work" utterly meaningless

Regardless, I would agree the SCOTUS upheld Congress's intent in requiring 4473s.

 

I think if "universal background checks" (all private sales going through the Federal government) is ever implemented the black market will start to take hold. It will be more apparent at that point that an independent structure needs to be in place to prevent total government control. It would have had a heck of a jump start if AR15's had been banned last year. (This is just my personal opinion of what could have / would have happened and not my direction that any laws should be broken).

 

Not sure if an executive order would pass legal muster. However UBC is their goal for right now as that will lead to registration of firearms.

They could make a ruling after that UBC becomes law that all firearms in private hands will have to go through UBC regardless if it will be sold or not or it cannot be sold later on.

Then they will offer amnesty for all firearms to go through the UBC process regardless if it will be sold or not when they will change the law slightly more by saying that if a firearm never went through UBC it is now contraband.

And no...I am not talking some tin foil harebrained scheme. I have studied their tactics for years. This is why Gabby, Bloomberg and company are making their bus tours from State Capitol to State Capitol pitching their UBC. It is the first step to gun registration.

Most recently the anti-gun march across the Brooklyn Bridge in prime anti-gun territory. http://www.ny1.com/content/news/210453/anti-gun-violence-rally-marches-across-brooklyn-bridge

.

 

I recall the "straw purchaser" in the Abramski case had a discount that the intended recipient did not have.

Did the court say anything about a distinction between simply buying for someone else and buying with the intent of transferring to someone else on another 4473?

Mike

 

I'm not sure how though. During the inital sale of the handgun a 4473 was filled out and then another 4473 was completed for the transfer to his uncle. The problem is just that Abramski answered that he was the actual purchaser on the initial 4473 that he filled out. The check from his uncle for the exact amount with Glock pistol in the memo section kind of proved that claim false.

 

Hey Frank,

Does this mean I finally got a ruling right?

I appreciate studying and learning from you.

 

I know this is beating a dead horse but in all fairness this is what has happened concerning our RKBA. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". By who, anyone? It doesn't say. Many believe that it was intended to allow states to create their own militias to hold the fed gov't in check. That would mean the citizens would have a RKBA. But it stops there. As a matter of fact 10A says that if the fed gov't doesn't specifically deny the right of the state to enact legislation then it is free to do just that.

In contrast we have 15A written in 1868 which states "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Now that's pretty clear.

I have to agree with the Supreme court here. They have a job to do and it isn't "legislating from the bench" as you so appropriately described it Frank.

 

Well, I just read the decision and am deeply troubled by the reasoning. There is a reason this was not a 5-4 decision and not a 9-0 decision because the statute makes it crime to lie about a "fact material to the lawfulness of" a firearms sale. There are previous precedents that the final result must be unlawful for the false statement to meet the materiality standard. This is the very question that the districts split on as well. It looks like the minority would have even struck down the court-created "straw purchaser" theory. Three out of 4 of the potential violations here, as written, require Abramski's uncle to be the actual purchaser.

The dissent also points out that the argument that Abramski's actions would have made the direct reading of the statute "meaningless" could also have been applied to other things the government considers legal by the exact same reasoning used by the majority:

-Gifts
-Buying with the intent to sell (prior to a common law agency agreement).
-Buying a gun intended to be a raffle prize.

The argument that a missing provision of a law is implied if it's absence would make the statute meaningless or even less effective is a frightening and dangerous one. The missing funding provision for Federal health exchanges (two current cased before the courts) comes to mind immediately. Claiming the power to rewrite broken laws strikes me as a huge new type of judicial activism. As the minority points out explicitly, what someone considers "broken" or a "loop hole" may actually be the result of a compromise intent.

Mike

 

I don't feel this case is defining "reasonable restriction" at all. It just upholds a law that the Court itself sees as being somewhat flawed in this situation - now we're tasked with changing the law, I guess.

I'm one who's in the camp of not fearing registration though. So take my opinion as you will. I just feel that fear of registration has as much control over people who own guns as the fear of gun ownership has on the anti crowd.

Fearmongering doesn't do a lot of good on either side.

 

A nice side effect of the majority reasoning is that we should be able to send our kids to the liquor store (with our ID, of course) . . .

Mike

 

Purchasing as a gift?

How does the ruling affect purchasing a firearm as a gift (family member, dear friend, etc)?

 

It shouldn't change. The government's position is that gifts are allowed and it says so right on the back of the Form 4473. However, as the dissent pointed out, the reasoning the majority used if valid, is equally valid for gifts and other transactions not opposed by the government.

Mike

 

So apparently it is (or maybe isn't) O.K. for a person to buy and pay for a firearm but not take possession of it from an FFL. Instead they pay the FFL to send the gun to a second one, from whom the "ultimate owner" picks it up after going through the required procedures, 4473 form, background check, etc.

Or could the second party, who resides in the same state, pick up the gun from the same FFL after presenting a paid receipt and filling out a 4473 form, etc.?

What happens if someone buys a gun with the intention of keeping it. However after a short time they decide they don't like it as much as they thought, and so sell or trade it at the next available gun show. Presume for argument that such a sale of what is now private property does not violate any state or local laws where it occurs.

As far as I know they're is no statutory limit to how long a buyer has to keep the firearm before they sell or otherwise transfer it to another person, dealer, whatever.