Supreme Court Rules Against Gun Owners

[PiratePast40]

The scariest phrase here is "record keeping requirements". When SCOTUS interprets part of the reason for the background check system being to track guns, then we have a serious problem.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

The actual decision is here in the Supreme Court .PDF: <broken link removed>

Know what this is, really? They couldn't make the bank robbery charge stick, so they busted him on this phony gun charge.

Then Supreme Court used it to gin up some more purchase restrictions based on some fiction that the actual buyer is going to be stupid enough to pay a straw purchasing agent by CHECK with the type of pistol written in the "FOR:" line on the check itself.

This whole thing hinges on intent.
You prove intent (the thought process) by showing what someone did.
Therefore, if someone purchased a gun and shot it awhile and after a month or two, sold it to somebody because "they didn't like it", seems to me that proving intent for a straw purchase would be darned difficult.

Key points here might be, and I am not giving legal advice: don't have the purchaser pay by CHECK before the original purchase is made.

Don't have the type of item being purchased on the FOR line of the check.

Consider the timing of the events.

PS,
The opinion that the "ONLY" way to prove intent is by a verbal agreement is rendered incorrect by the events in this case.

In this instance, it was the paper trail of the check, check date three days before the purchase and "Glock 19 handgun" being written on the check was what cooked the defendant's goose. Geese.

Also important to make the distinction that they are not including gifts in this decision, but purchases preceding a quick sale. Some posts above about gifts seem to be confusing the two.

 

[The Heretic]

I would doubt this applies to a purchase meant as a gift since the person receiving the gift is not a "purchaser".

If you disregard to whole issue of having to fill out a 4473 and running a background check, I think the interpretation of the law by SCOTUS was correct. I am not agreeing with the law - just the opposite - but the question wasn't whether the law was unconstitutional or valid, it was whether the law was broken, and in my opinion it was.

I have stated before that I find most of our gun laws unconstitutional - in effect.

I believe that any non-felon adult of voting age should be allowed to own any weapon the government owns (with the exception of NBC weapons which nobody should own, including the government), without having to submit to a background check, registration, etc.

But, we have these laws, and if we want to keep out of court and possibly out of prison, then we have to play by the rules until such time and/or place that that laws are not in effect. If you get caught then be prepared to pay the penalty.

 

[RVTECH]

They couldn't make the bank robbery charge stick

So how does a 'bank robbery charge' play into all this? Is there a link to THAT part?

 

[223to45]

.
Key points here might be, and I am not giving legal advice: don't have the purchaser pay by CHECK before the original purchase is made.

In this instance, it was the paper trail of the check, check date three days before the purchase and "Glock 19 handgun" being written on the check was what cooked the defendant's goose. Geese.

.

This is what I feel, was the major down fall.

 

[Dave Workman]

SCOTUS ruling: Does Kagan opinion smack of gun registration?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that gun buyers must make it clear on their federal Form 4473 if they will keep the firearm or subsequently sell it, and a remark in the majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan is sure to raise eyebrows among gun rights activists concerned about de facto registration.


<broken link removed>

 

[PiratePast40]

^^^ Thanks Dave, good read.

 

[FateOne]

So how does a 'bank robbery charge' play into all this? Is there a link to THAT part?

Abramski was investigated for bank robbery. Those charges were later dropped. During the search of his house while they were investigating those charges they found a receipt of some sort that started the investigation for the straw purchase. Abramski was fired from his law enforcement job 2 years before the purchase but used his invalid LEO credentials to purchase the Glock at a discount.

 

[deen_ad]

<- Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel!
Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!

I don't like the decision but Abramski obviously wasn't the purchaser of the handgun so he did indeed lie on the 4473. Still think the DOJ should have gone after many, many other straw purchasers though.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
NRA Golden Eagle member
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!"

 

[Roger65]

.
What about the following scenario. My dad wants to buy me a gun for my birthday. We go to the store, I pick one out and fill out th4473 and do the background check in my name. Then I keep the gun forever, but he pays with his credit card. Legal? Not gonna happen, just curious.

 

[rick benjamin]

These two fools committed several stupids. Straw man sale, money, paper trail, seen carrying.
There's no other story here.
Appears the uncle was caught carrying in a bank, maybe legally, but when they traced the gun...

The real crime is that ATF allowed the cartels to walk all those guns south.

 

[rick benjamin]

.
What about the following scenario. My dad wants to buy me a gun for my birthday. We go to the store, I pick one out and fill out th4473 and do the background check in my name. Then I keep the gun forever, but he pays with his credit card. Legal? Not gonna happen, just curious.

I was a licensed dealer. My wife asked one of my suppliers if she could buy a gun I coveted as a birthday gift for me. He graciously (and thankfully) told her no, against the law, a strawman transaction. She told me what had happened, and I was very glad we didn't have that birthday present.
The federal law is very clear, the form 4473 is clear.
Hence my comment regarding several threads of stupid happening all at once.
Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (243 pages)

 

[orygun]

The form 4473 asks if you are the actual purchaser of a firearm. When I bought the rifles that I gifted to Dad (1990) and Mom (2005) I was the purchaser. They didn't ask me if I was purchasing them for a gift...



By the way, the guys at the gun counter thought it was cool I was buying my 72 year old mom a 22.

It was legal. It is legal.

F 'em.

 

[orygun]

I was a licensed dealer. My wife asked one of my suppliers if she could buy a gun I coveted as a birthday gift for me. He graciously (and thankfully) told her no, against the law, a strawman transaction. She told me what had happened, and I was very glad we didn't have that birthday present.
The federal law is very clear, the form 4473 is clear.
Hence my comment regarding several threads of stupid happening all at once.
Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (243 pages)

That dealer was wrong. You would have to supply the money and be ineligible to purchase the gun for it to be a straw purchase. A gift is a gift, and the 4473 does not ask that. If your wife was asking a supplier to sell her a gun on your license, that would be illegal.

 

[rick benjamin]

Orygun,
I believe you are correct in my case. We would still have been in trouble had the deal happened.
In the case of the Virginian and Pennsylvanian, the supremes cooked their geese.

 

[orygun]

Yeah. It ain't lookin pretty. We gotta stand up for what's right.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Orygun,
I believe you are correct in my case. We would still have been in trouble had the deal happened.
In the case of the Virginian and Pennsylvanian, the supremes cooked their geese.

Rick I am sorry but I still do not see how you would have been in trouble, unless it was that part about the license. Your wife and the supplier could certainly enter into a transaction where the intended firearms could be for a gift. Provided it was just between her and the supplier. Surprisingly even the ATF site is clear on this point.