Justices ponder 'straw purchasers' gun law

[BroncoFan]

Once again, you try to hide your confusion by blasting unrelated information. The law states you must abide by the 4473. The 4473 says you cannot act as an agent. End of story. The court has given NO indication that their previous stance has changed on this topic. That is why this case is not arguing whether it is actually illegal as the law stands (that has been decided before), but as to whether the feds have the right to pass such a law. They are not arguing the fact that a law has been broken, they are arguing the principle of the law itself.

PS: The ATF website itself answers the question by saying...
"A straw purchase is an illegal firearm purchase where the actual buyer of the gun, being unable to pass the required federal background check or desiring to not have his or her name associated with the transaction, uses a proxy buyer who can pass the required background check to purchase the firearm for him/her. It is highly illegal and punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison."

Blasting unrelated information? I'm citing case law directly related to 922. Can you please cite where Uncle did not want his name associated with the transfer? Uncle was eligible and did in fact pass a background check on the subsequent transfer. Your citation to the ATF information is totally unrelated to the facts of this case, as nothing about it applies. Is the ATF now above the 5th circuit. Also is "highly illegal" like "highly pregnant?"

Anyway - Congratulations - You get the final say. I'm done. Respond away.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Blasting unrelated information? I'm citing case law directly related to 922. Can you please cite where Uncle did not want his name associated with the transfer? Uncle was eligible and did in fact pass a background check on the subsequent transfer. Your citation to the ATF information is totally unrelated to the facts of this case, as nothing about it applies. Is the ATF now above the 5th circuit. Also is "highly illegal" like "highly pregnant?"

Anyway - Congratulations - You get the final say. I'm done. Respond away.

It is unrelated. That ruling DID NOT deal with the legalities of the 4473 requirements as they stand today. Nor does it hold legal precedent over current legal matters. It is outdated and narrow and does not pertain to the current case or law.

Do you admit that this current law suit is not about the violation of the law but of whether the law itself is legitimate and not overreaching?

 

[Boomerang]

BroncoFan, you should make an attempt to locate the lawyers for Bruce James Abramski, Jr and email them the case you are referring to. It may help them with the appeal. And keep us posted. This is interesting.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

BroncoFan, you should make an attempt to locate the lawyers for Bruce James Abramski, Jr and email them the case you are referring to. It may help them with the appeal. And keep us posted. This is interesting.

Those lawyers are already well aware of that ruling...and how it DOES NOT pertain to their case. It is outside the entire premise of their defense.

 

[Stomper]

Misleading...the FEDERAL LAW does clearly state that it is a FELONY (punishable by 5 years in prison) to provide false information on the 4473. He lied on form 4473 by his own admission. To try and muddy it beyond that is self serving and borderline deceptive.

I know it says "blah, blah, blah.... Punishable under Federal Law" on Form 4473 for question 11a (but then they can bluster on about anything in fine print).

Would you be good enough to possibly point out specifically where it says that in the pertinent USC for a Form 4473 that gives the BATFE the authority to even make that an issue in the first place?

Perhaps it is technically a crime to "knowingly" answer a question "falsely", but does the lawful authority actually exist for the question in the first place? If not, then would not the whole issue be moot from the get-go?

I'll bring up another (somewhat) analogous "unlawful" action... Enlisting in the military back in the 80's you had answer the question as to your sexuality. Was it not a crime to answer "no" when asked if one was homosexual, while many answered "no" who were, because at that time (right or wrong) it would have disqualified them from service?

Maybe there wasn't (or was there?) a SPECIFIC Federal Law prohibiting gays in the military, but it was DEFINATELY the "policy", and answering the question falsely would have been a "crime"?

Is there a specific Federal law that prohibits the action in question, or is it just BATFE "policy"?

It's exciting to possibly learn something new today!!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I know it says "blah, blah, blah.... Punishable under Federal Law" on Form 4473 for question 11a (but then they can bluster on about anything in fine print).

Would you be good enough to possibly point out specifically where it says that in the pertinent USC for a Form 4473 that gives the BATFE the authority to even make that an issue in the first place?

Perhaps it is technically a crime to "knowingly" answer a question "falsely", but does the lawful authority actually exist for the question in the first place? If not, then would not the whole issue be moot from the get-go?

I'll bring up another (somewhat) analogous "unlawful" action... Enlisting in the military back in the 80's you had answer the question as to your sexuality. Was it not a crime to answer "no" when asked if one was homosexual, while many answered "no" who were, because at that time (right or wrong) it would have disqualified them from service?

Maybe there wasn't (or was there?) a SPECIFIC Federal Law prohibiting gays in the military, but it was DEFINATELY the "policy", and answering the question falsely would have been a "crime"?

Is there a specific Federal law that prohibits the action in question, or is it just BATFE "policy"?

It's exciting to possibly learn something new today!!

That authority is within the context of their office. They have been given authority by congress to write the conditions of the 4473 and congress has approved the law that states the 4473 must be observed. Outside of that I do not understand your question. Did you read the 1968 law?

 

[U201491]

Can someone tell me in simple hillbilly terms what this court case will do that will affect
upcoming transactions. All of it is like reading a calculous book while spinning at hyper-speed and blindfolded

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Can someone tell me in simple hillbilly terms what this court case will do that will affect
upcoming transactions. All of it is like reading a calculous book while spinning at hyper-speed and blindfolded

It will likely not affect us at all...but if we are lucky, it might make them have to change the 4473.

 

[U201491]

It will likely not affect us at all...but if we are lucky, it might make them have to change the 4473.

That might be good or bad.
Its one of the things that made me send my ffl and books back to the ATF and a note telling to stuff them up their azzes.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

We probably all agree with you. But for that to have any legal weight, it would need to backed up by case law, as in Judges ruling to that effect.

The legal weight is with original intent, our drive to enforce that, and not with 9 traitors in black robes

 

[BroncoFan]

BroncoFan, you should make an attempt to locate the lawyers for Bruce James Abramski, Jr and email them the case you are referring to. It may help them with the appeal. And keep us posted. This is interesting.

Boomerang, I said I was done with this but I'm happy to point you to EXACTLY the source document that shows you this premise is central to the case. Some people on this forum don't want facts to get in the way of their argument. - Ambramski's lawyers are well aware of the case - so much so the first page of this SCOTUS filing in September directly addresses the conflict inherent in 922 and addresses the government's flawed argument. Oh but wait, it has nothing to do with this case...

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/12-1493-Reply-Brief.pdf

More to the point, Ambramski is asking the court to settle this matter before anything else can be considered. The government does not want the SC to address it. The final request of Ambramski's Lawyers - Directly from the filing for certiorari (review) -

"Thus, the Court should grant certiorari on these interrelated straw purchaser doctrine
questions so that it may squarely address both.... Otherwise, Abramski may be
faced with the injustice of having prevailed on his legal arguments but nevertheless left to serve out his
sentence for a felony conviction that this Court's decision would otherwise render invalid."

But again - It has nothing to so with this case...(sarcasm)

 

[BroncoFan]

Can someone tell me in simple hillbilly terms what this court case will do that will affect
upcoming transactions. All of it is like reading a calculous book while spinning at hyper-speed and blindfolded

Taku - Here is an excellent HillBilly friendly summation of Abramski's argument and the straw purchaser fiction and its centrality to his case. Just remember it has nothing to do with this case

<broken link removed>

 

[U201491]

Taku - Here is an excellent HillBilly friendly summation of Abramski's argument and the straw purchaser fiction and its centrality to his case. Just remember it has nothing to do with this case

<broken link removed>

I wonder if that last paragraph might be the goal of the whole case?

 

[Darknight]

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.

In order to get the glock discount like he did, he would have had to have credentials identifying him as an active or retired LEO. In order to get retirement credentials you have to be in good standing with your agency when you retire and in Oregon's case DPSST. In order to be in good standings as a retired or active LEO you have to meet the code of conduct and code of ethics standards set forth by your agency and/or certifying agency. Part of the code of ethics is not using your position as a LEO for non-official purposes. Using your position for financial gain for yourself or others is not allowed.

The firing portion would be for active LEO's and the decertification/loss of good standing for both active and retired. In this case he could and should lose his retirement credentials for using his position for financial gain for another person. Most states allow retired LEO's to use retirement credentials as an acception to concealed handgun laws.

 

[BroncoFan]

I wonder if that last paragraph might be the goal of the whole case?

Bingo, it drives to the very heart of the case. The Feds Love the ambiguity. In this case ambiguity breeds fear and unfamiliarity and chills free exercise of rights. I'll say it again that this case will have the effect of bringing out of the shadows and show in stark relief those efforts to deny God given rights. If you take some member's logic to its natural conclusion, any of us that have ever sold a gun that was bought at a dealer could be considered guilty of a straw purchase.
No one can define what it is and the law, the overriding purpose notwithstanding (ie, prevention of prohibited persons from obtaining a firearm), is silent on just what a straw purchase is. Is it ok to buy a gun for your wife? The law is ambiguous. When is it ok to sell a gun. After a FFL purchase? The law is ambiguous. This case will have far reaching effects no matter what the outcome.

 

[BroncoFan]

Well,
Here are the first of the Oral Arguments. Long read but very interesting.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1493_2135.pdf

 

[bearingman]

"A straw purchase is an illegal firearm purchase where the actual buyer of the gun, being unable to pass the required federal background check or desiring to not have his or her name associated with the transaction, uses a proxy buyer who can pass the required background check to purchase the firearm for him/her. It is highly illegal and punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison."

Since the final purchaser went through a FFL, obviously this would not apply. This was simply a lawful ( FFL) purchase and a lawful (FFL) sale.

 

[fd15k]

"A straw purchase is an illegal firearm purchase where the actual buyer of the gun, being unable to pass the required federal background check or desiring to not have his or her name associated with the transaction, uses a proxy buyer who can pass the required background check to purchase the firearm for him/her. It is highly illegal and punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison."

Since the final purchaser went through a FFL, obviously this would not apply. This was simply a lawful ( FFL) purchase and a lawful (FFL) sale.

That is not how ATF interprets it, and that's what the case is about.