Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Justices ponder 'straw purchasers' gun law

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by deen_ad, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Yahoo!
     
  2. simon99

    simon99 Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,673
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Maybe they will finally charge Holder and Co.
     
  3. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Thanks, I needed a good laugh! :bluelaugh::laugh:
     
  4. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,912
    Likes Received:
    19,563

    Meh, like MOST THINGS Congress does isn't utterly meaningless?
     
  5. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,095
    Likes Received:
    6,889
    Gun control laws - "utterly meaningless".

    Yup - that about describes them.

    That describes a lot of stupid laws that comes out of D.C.
     
  6. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner You'll Never Know Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    All the laws and regulations that have sprung from people clamoring for government to do something about some other thing. Yup, I'd say utterly meaningless applies!!

    As it stands, my wife cannot buy me a firearm as a present. The BG Check in her name, the gun in her name and she gives it to me, paying for it with my money!! :rofl1:
     
  7. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    And, according to other posts here, anyone can buy a gun and give it to someone else, AS LONG as they use THEIR money. If you give them the money to buy the gun, then it's a straw purchase. So yes, if she uses YOUR money to buy it then it's illegal, if she uses her own money it's legal. The gov't has to prove INTENT make a straw purchase to convict.


    Deen
    NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
    Defender of Freedom Award
    NRA Recruiter
    Second Amendment Foundation Member
    Washington Arms Collectors Member
    Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member


    "A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"
     
    Caveman Jim and (deleted member) like this.
  8. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner You'll Never Know Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    But..... It's all my money!! :cigar: She thinks it's the other way around, though! :bawling:
     
  9. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,095
    Likes Received:
    6,889
    Yeah well - let's not go there - for the sake of your marriage and health.

    I have given guns as gifts, but I know enough about the law to know that if someone wants to buy a gun then they need to buy it themselves, not give me the money to buy it - even if they are legal to buy it. That's the law and it states it right there on the form you sign. It takes a special kind of dumb to sign that form, get caught, and then complain about it because they get caught.

    I have to wonder how this particular person got caught.

    Moreover, he bought the firearm for a person in another state - even as a gift, such a transfer has to happen via an FFL. Seems to me that this person - a former LEO who should have known better - broke two federal laws.

    I may not like a LOT of our current laws, but I often do not have much sympathy when someone knowingly and blatantly breaks them and then complains about getting caught.

    Until such time as an unjust law is repealed, don't break the law.
     
  10. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    Anyone shed any more light on this one ?


    Abramski case before the Supreme Court could end tyrannical drive for “universal background checks

    Abramski case before the Supreme Court could end tyrannical drive for ?universal background checks?

    Abramski case before the Supreme Court could end tyrannical drive for “universal background checks”
    Posted by Bob Owens on January 23, 2014 at 7:36 am
    The United States Supreme Court seems poised to smack down the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for attempting to create laws on it’s own in a case known as Bruce J. Abramski v. United States, or simply Abramski.

    Bruce Abramski is a former cop who is legally allowed to buy firearms. His uncle Angel Alvarez, can also legally buy firearms. Abramski purchased a Glock 19 pistol from a dealer using his law enforcement discount to get a better price, then sold the gun to his uncle. Both transfers—from the Virginia FFL to Abramski, then from Abramski through another FFL to Alvarez in Pennsylvania—followed the law.

    The ATF then charged Abramski for perjuring himself on the ATF’s form 4473 for saying he was the “actual buyer.”

    And here’s where it gets interesting: the “law” that Abramski broken regarding what the ATF calls a straw purchase isn’t a law at all, but a gross government overreach and an illegal expansion of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 was intended to stop prohibited people —such as felons, drug users, the severely mentally ill and domestic abusers — from getting firearms. Congress deliberately did not attempt to control transfers between people who are lawfully allowed to have a gun.

    The assistant to the solicitor general, Joseph Palmore, admitted to the court that the ATF was “interpreting” the will of Congress when it added the “actual buyer” question in 1995 on the background form.

    Mr. Palmore said the other “critical” purposes of the ATF’s agenda with determining the final buyer was “tracing of firearms and to prevent the anonymous stockpiling of firearms.” Uncle Sam is not supposed to be getting involved in a citizen’s decision to buy as many guns as he decides he wants to defend himself.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to side with the plaintiff’s position that the ATF had overstepped into trying to create criminal law. Referring to the Gun Control Act, the chief justice said, “This language is fought over tooth and nail by people on the gun-control side and the gun-ownership side.”

    He called it “very problematic” for the government to cite going after law abiding people who resell firearms as a purpose of the law since “there are no words in the statute that have anything to do with straw purchasers.”

    Justice Scalia was even more adamant that Roberts, noting that the ATF’s straw purchase provision was not only an attempt by the agency to unilaterally manufacture gun laws, but is a clear infringement on the intent of GCA ’68 and and private property rights. If the court agrees with Scalia, and determines that the government may not interfere with lawful commerce of handguns between private parties, then the gun-grabber’s drive for universal background checks is over as a constitutional matter.

    At the end of the article journalist Emily Miller opines that universal background checks defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment as a hedge against tyranny, as the Second Amendment is only a deterrent against tyranny for as long as the government doesn’t know who is armed.

    She’s absolutely correct, and a positive outcome in Abramski could sound the end to this threat against our sacred liberty.
     
  11. Darknight

    Darknight Salem Active Member

    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    118
    Even if he wins, I do not belive that will affect BGC from an FFL, but it reads as if it would most certainly have an effect on fact to face transfers.

    On another note, he used his position as a lawenforcement officer for financial gain. In Oregon and a lot of other states, doing so will get you decertified and fired.
     
  12. Grunwald

    Grunwald Out of that nut job colony of Seattle, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    FORMER police officer. It would be very difficult to fire him.
    Additionally the discount was used to get a better price for a relative, not make money himself. No personal financial gain there.
    We all hate crooked cops but you are stretching it here.
     
  13. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    What I am trying to understand is how would the outcome affect private sale BGC's ??
     
  14. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,912
    Likes Received:
    19,563
    Don't get your hopes up on that, this case concerns the "straw purchaser" issue that he was convicted on. From how I've seen the "justice" system operate, it will require a whole new onslaught of court filings specifically concerning BGC's, and private transactions in particular.

    I think the best one could hope for is that it establishes a basis of logic that one could construe into a legal argument to pursue through the court system.

    IMHO
     
  15. coyote223

    coyote223 NW Oregon Stamp Collector,,,

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    512
    Don't have much faith in the court, they could swing any direction obozo directs them to. I'm sure the NSA has some good blackmail material on them,,,
     
  16. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Here's the link to this story that I started on Jan 22nd:
    http://www.northwestfirearms.com/le...justices-ponder-straw-purchasers-gun-law.html


    Deen
    NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
    "Defender of Freedom" award
    NRA Recruiter
    Second Amendment Foundation Member
    Washington Arms Collectors Member
    Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member


    "Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"
     
  17. rufus

    rufus State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    930
    In the normal world, where logic prevails, if Abramski wins UBGCs are DOA. For the libs in la-la-land, they will argue the exact opposite is true.
     
  18. RicInOR

    RicInOR Washington County Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Had the uncle been in his state, who would have known about the private party sale?

    Since this did involve 2 FFL transfers, how did the BATFE determine it wasn't a legit 2nd sale?

    I have bought stuff and returned it because it wasn't right.
    I have also bought stuff, thought I needed something else, and sold the first item.
     
  19. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    8,965
    "Mr. Palmore said the other “critical” purposes of the ATF’s agenda with determining the final buyer was “tracing of firearms and to prevent the anonymous stockpiling of firearms.” Uncle Sam is not supposed to be getting involved in a citizen’s decision to buy as many guns as he decides he wants to defend himself.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to side with the plaintiff’s position that the ATF had overstepped into trying to create criminal law. Referring to the Gun Control Act, the chief justice said, “This language is fought over tooth and nail by people on the gun-control side and the gun-ownership side.”

    He called it “very problematic” for the government to cite going after law abiding people who resell firearms as a purpose of the law since “there are no words in the statute that have anything to do with straw purchasers.”

    If no one caught it my thinking is that there is a registry on every gun sold by an FFL. This means they can come get them if they chose to disarm us (knowing there will be a revolt if they do) but they know where you live!!!
     
  20. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,744
    By law, it was a straw purchase. Whoever wrote this article does not know the law. The law has nothing to do with being legally allowed to own a gun. The law clearly states you cannot ever act as an agent for another buyer...regardless of whether they can legally own or not. That part of the law is stupid.
     
    Redcap and (deleted member) like this.