Supreme Court Rules on Straw Purchase Ban

[Johnjosiah]

What does this ruling mean for private sales? Or even buying a gun for someone as a gift?

 

[Dave70968]

It doesn't affect either. It does, however, mean that I get to say "I told you so" to everybody who ever said that it's only a straw purchase if the ultimate buyer is prohibited:

It makes no difference, the Court majority stressed, that the individual who buys the gun personally or the individual who actually gets the gun after the purchase has a legal right to have a gun. That does not excuse the crime of lying about who the buyer is at the time of the sale, it said. The government has to be able to track gun buyers, and truthful forms about buyers are a key to that, according to the ruling.

...

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the dissenters, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas. The Scalia opinion argued that the federal background-checking scheme simply does not apply to a gun purchase when both the person at the counter paying for the weapon and the person for whom the gun is being bought are legally eligible to have it.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/opinion-analysis-no-stand-in-gun-buyers-allowed/

 

[clock152]

so if say I built an AR for someone and I paid for it and sold it to them for $1 more.... I may be covered.

 

[rawhide]

Kagan wrote, “No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun’s purchaser-the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer.”
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.

It appears Justice Kagan believes registration is already in effect and if not it should be.

Scalia's comment in dissent:

“On the majority’s view, if the bureaucrats responsible for creating Form 4473 decided to ask about the buyer’s favorite color, a false response would be a federal crime.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/scotus-ruling-does-kagan-opinion-smack-of-gun-registration

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...-rights-case-today-what-does-it-mean-for-you/

It would also appear, to me at least, that the intent of the law has been changed by the majority.

 

[rawhide]

so if say I built an AR for someone and I paid for it and sold it to them for $1 more.... I may be covered.

Private sales do not require a 4473. Not yet anyway. But, if the government's interest in tracking gun buyers is the most important thing even though the purchaser is legal to own a firearm, then it would seem the 4473 is irrelevant. The government must know who has guns.

 

[farmerbyron]

It appears Justice Kagan believes registration is already in effect and if not it should be.

Scalia's comment in dissent:

http://www.examiner.com/article/scotus-ruling-does-kagan-opinion-smack-of-gun-registration

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...-rights-case-today-what-does-it-mean-for-you/

It would also appear, to me at least, that the intent of the law has been changed by the majority.

How such a naive person gets on the highest court in the land is beyond me. To think that any crime is going to be tracked down because of this ruling is laughable. Criminals and prohibited persons will continue to break current law as they have done for ages. Likewise firearms as gifts will continue unabated as this ruling is unenforceable. There is no way to prove a straw purchase for a non prohibited person ever took place. "Did you purchase this gun for yourself?" "Yes, then I sold it to Joe in exchange for his good company" or whatever dollar amount you desire.

 

[SMS]

What does this ruling mean for private sales? Or even buying a gun for someone as a gift?

It means nothing for the status quo. The defendant in this case broke the rules and lied on the form. I'm amazed it went all the way to the Supreme Court...

 

[Dave70968]

It means nothing for the status quo. The defendant in this case broke the rules and lied on the form. I'm amazed it went all the way to the Supreme Court...

I'm not. It only takes a vote from four Justices to hear a case; after two stinging defeats (Heller and McDonald), the four-Justice minority on those cases saw an opportunity to dial back the rights we were regaining.

 

[SMS]

Well if their goal was to dial anything back, I don't think they accomplished it.

They defended/affirmed straw purchases as most of us defined them before this case.

 

[dennishoddy]

It was just feel good legislation for gun control folks. I watched an interview with some dufus gun control group spokesman on the evening news crowing about what an important piece of legislation this was in the fight to control straw purchases, and keep guns away from criminals.

I repeat, dufas. I can't believe somebody would not see that this does nothing basically.