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

Supreme Court Rules Against Gun Owners

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Chee-to, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    1.jpg
    Oregon Firearms Federation
    06.16.14
    Supreme Court Rules You Cannot Buy A Gun For Another Approved Person.

    Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if you purchase a firearm and transfer it to another "approved" buyer, you are a "straw purchaser" and may go to prison.

    The ruling is in the case US vs Abramski, a case to which Oregon Firearms contributed to an Amicus brief.
    The buyer of the gun purchased a gun legally and transferred it to his uncle who was also an approved buyer. The uncle took possession of the gun after passing a background check. Abramski (a former police officer) was charged with a "straw purchase."
    "The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them."
    Clearly this transfer had nothing to do with crimes or people who are ineligible to receive firearms. This ruling will vastly complicate any future transfers of legitimately owned guns.


    Forward this email
     
  2. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    < Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
    Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

    So true, seems like it could be interpreted to mean you can't buy a gun for you child and give it to them without risking jail.

    Deen
    NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
    "Defender of Freedom" award
    NRA Golden Eagle member
    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"
     
  3. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    What about private sales ?
     
  4. Martini_Up

    Martini_Up NW USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,632
    Likes Received:
    1,734
    just wait. caught with an 'un-registered gun' and you will go to prison.

    so much for, "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
     
    Michael Js likes this.
  5. Frankenrifle

    Frankenrifle Clatskanie Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    103
    See that Dodo bird over there? It and our private, FTF, sales are soon to have something in common.
     
    Michael Js and Chee-to like this.
  6. John H

    John H Whatcom County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    489
    Still doesn't change anything I will do, if I want to buy one for someone I will.

    JUST DON'T TELL ANYBODY WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
     
  7. RicInOR

    RicInOR Washington County Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,902
    Likes Received:
    4,714
    How long ? I buy a gun, then I gift it. How long between purchase and gifting?
    Non firearms example: If you make an investment and cash it in in less than 1 year, it is treated differently from one you hold for longer than 1 year for tax purposes.
    Or is gifting even impacted? This case is about intent. Such as, I am buying this coffee for my wife. It is a gift, but I bought it specifically for her, and because she requested me to.

    My other other thought is "shut up already." Do not talk about what you are doing.
    "The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to his uncle in Pennsylvania — even though the uncle is not prohibited from owning firearms."
    How would anyone know what your intent was, unless you were running your mouth?



    Additional older discussion
    http://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/justices-ponder-straw-purchasers-gun-law.160478
     
    mjbskwim likes this.
  8. bolus

    bolus Portland Gold Supporter Gold Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,366
    Likes Received:
    6,967
    The case is because he lied on the background check form that the gun was for him. His friend gave him money to buy him a handgun with his police discount. He signed the background check form that says the gun was for him, and then sent the other guy the gun. Police caught this when investigating something else.

    Private sales are fine. Just dont lie on the background check form when buying a gun from a FFL.

    Something that does not seem wrong (buying a gun for someone who can legally own one) now turns into a precedent by the SCOTUS and is used against us all.
     
    AnthonyNorfleet likes this.
  9. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    4,964
    there's always more to the story
     
  10. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    2,082
    Not sure about the impact of this. The case they are talking about involves a purchase for another person in order to obtain a discount for which that person was not entitled. Not the same circumstances but sounds like it now makes it unlawful for us to purchase a gun as a gift, even if the receiving person undergoes and passes a background check. To follow it further, in order to enforce the law, seems to me that every gun would need to be registered.

    Here's something odd, think I just either heard a pig squealing at the farm near here, or there is a certain politician in the Hillsboro area squealing in delight!
     
  11. cookie

    cookie THE SOCIALIST STATE OF KALI - FORNIA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    533
    The long term trend is to ban gun ownership. The new world order won't work unless we are disarmed.
     
    OLDNEWBIE likes this.
  12. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    That's how I read it. That's the direction we are going anyway.
    How many SCOTUS Justices will the next POTUS be picking I wonder?
     
  13. Outrider

    Outrider Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    153
    The fact that distinguishes this case from the gift situation is the uncle paid his nephew $400 in advance to get the pistol for him. This is what makes Abramski's answer about being the "actual buyer" problematic. Had he just bought the pistol and gave it to his uncle or had his uncle pay him afterwards, he'd be in the clear.

    That said, it's a bad ruling given the facts. The concern surrounding straw purchases primarily revolves around the scenario where Party A buys a firearm for Party B because Party B cannot pass a background check or does not want a record of the transfer. Here, Abramski and the uncle each had the pistol transferred via a FFL dealer. Each filled out a Form 4473 and submitted themselves to a background check. Neither party avoided the background check or Form 4473.
     
    Doc In UPlace likes this.
  14. Fast Eddie

    Fast Eddie Vancouver Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    583
    We are one dead or retired Supreme Court Justice away from a liberal majority in the supreme court.

    If you had a crystal ball, you might not like what you could see.

    "No Democratic president since John Kennedy has failed to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with a reliable liberal."

    "The Second Amendment right to own firearms would almost certainly be overturned, reducing today’s battle over background checks to mere rearrangement of the Titanic’s deck chairs."

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...ourt-justice-usher-in-new-progressive-agenda/
     
    OLDNEWBIE likes this.
  15. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    In case anybody missed it.................


    No Democratic president since John Kennedy has failed to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with a reliable liberal.


    "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia turned 77 this week. For conservatives, his birthday is an opportunity to celebrate his 27 years on the Court. But it’s also a reminder of the all too likely prospect that President Obama will pick a successor for Scalia or his colleague Anthony Kennedy, who turns 77 in July."

    Election outcomes matter. It will have an effect our gun rights.
     
    Fast Eddie likes this.
  16. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    4,964
    How would the Supreme court over turn the second amendment? It takes 38 states to change the Bill of Rights. The court can only rule on cases brought before them.
     
  17. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    And what side do you think a Kaganesk majority court would rule in a Citizen vs State anti-gun case?
    Right of citizen to carry a gun outside the home?
    Right of citizen to gift a firearm?
    Right of citizen to keep a gun that fires more than 10, I mean 6 ugh 5 rounds???
    Right of citizen to not be jailed if someone breaks into his home, steals his gun and commits a crime!


    These people want to neuter the 2nd Amendment because they can't eliminate it.
     
  18. Outrider

    Outrider Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    153
    Even though the wording is there, the court can interpret its meaning in a way that is harmful to our rights. They can also refuse to act in ways to protect our rights.

    Interpretation. One can interpret parts of the Constitution narrowly or expansively. Look at the Commerce Clause. Initially, it was interpreted very narrowly. This limited congressional power. Over time, it became interpreted to cover all kinds of things and greatly expanded Congressional power. Really from FDR's New Deal to 1995, the Commerce Clause expanded Congress' power to regulate all kinds of activities that are not normally associated with interstate commerce.

    It was not until the Lopez case, that the Supreme Court stopped the expansion of Congress' power via the Commerce Clause. Interestingly, Lopez was a gun case. There was a federal law prohibiting firearms on or near schools. Congress based its ability to regulate this activity on the Commerce Clause. A guy (Lopez) got caught bringing a gun onto a school campus. He was convicted of violating the federal law. He appealed and his conviction was overturned. When the Supreme Court heard the case, the government made arguments along the lines of violent crime affecting interstate commerce. It was tenuous. The Supreme Court struck the law down saying that under the government's interpretation of the Commerce Clause, there was nothing that could not be regulated and that went against what was intended.

    Another way the court can change the law is to simply not hear cases. Recently there was a case regarding concealed carry permits that the Supreme Court declined to hear. That means the holding of a lower court stands. So if a lower court ruled in a way that hurts gun rights, that holding is allowed to stand and that is the law for that jurisdiction.

    The Amendments do not self-enforce. If the Court does not protect them, their protections disappear. The First Amendment guarantees the rights of assembly and free speech. "Designated Free Speech Zones" were not what the Founders had in mind. To restore the right to what it should be, requires litigation and a Supreme Court that will uphold where the Founders intended the line to be.
     
  19. RVTECH

    RVTECH LaPine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,261
    Likes Received:
    3,074
    This 'ruling' is still painted with a broad brush in shades of gray. How does the act of buying a gun and then giving it to someone (legally able to own) differ from buying one and later trading/selling it to a complete stranger? I mean if I sell/trade a gun I am INTENDING to do it - so how does my intent to sell/trade a gun differ from my possible intent of giving it to someone I know, as well as KNOW is legal to own it? Lets look at this another way - I legally buy from an FFL I know at the time it is for ME but a week later decide I made a mistake, don't really like it etc. and decide to trade/sell? Where is the line? Does it all simply 'boil down' to my intent at the time of the purchase? If so then the ONLY way this could be proven and acted on legally is IF the buyer stated verbally 'I am buying this with the intent of giving it away' and this was heard/witnessed.
     
  20. timberfaller

    timberfaller East Wenatchee, WA Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    22
    Just more PROOF that just because you go to college and get a few degree's, DOES NOT make one smart or a student of history or one who can comprehend the "written" language!!

    Here is just a snippet of the ruling!

    "Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.

    Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

    In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

    Obviously there are some judges who DON'T have life's where there are reality checks!!