Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Straw Purchase Law

[Dave70968]

First of all, let us all remember that that the government's view of a straw purchase doesn't have to be for the benefit of a prohibited person; it's any instance where the purchaser is not the actual buyer. If that were not the case, this suit wouldn't exist. That said,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eighs-gun-rights-challenge/?intcmp=latestnews

Supreme Court weighs gun rights challenge
Published January 22, 2014
FoxNews.com

The Supreme Court took up a new gun rights case on Wednesday, weighing whether it should be a crime for someone to buy a gun for somebody else, if both people are legally allowed to own one.

Justices on Wednesday heard from Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former police officer who got in trouble with the law after he bought a Glock 19 handgun in Virginia -- and transferred it to his uncle in Pennsylvania.

Abramski bought the gun because he could get a discount, and checked a box on the relevant form saying the gun was for him. But he sold it to his uncle.

Abramski was later indicted under federal law for making a false statement material to the lawfulness of a firearm sale -- and for making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a license firearm dealer.

But Abramski's lawyers told the high court that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.

His team argued that Congress never intended for a lawful buyer who transfers a gun to another lawful owner to be prosecuted under this law -- and that the intent was all about making sure straw buyers don't purchase guns for people not allowed to have them, like certain convicted criminals.

But the government argued that he violated the plain language of the law, when he said on the form that the gun was for him. They argued he never gave the seller any idea that he planned to essentially resell the gun to someone else the dealer would have no opportunity to vet.

Much of Wednesday's arguments centered on the question on the form -- prepared by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- and whether the agency's decision to include the question gives it the force of law, enough to make it a crime to answer untruthfully.

A decision in the case is expected by June.

 

[0311]

The decision by the court will have far reaching implications.

 

[LuckyDucky]

I already posted this in 2nd amendment forum

https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?190404-Abramski-Oral-Arguments-were-today

 

[rawhide]

Maybe common sense will prevail.
Also, didn't the uncle also have to do a 4473 when the gun was sent across state lines? Seems that would be enough to meet the intent of the law.

But, I guess the question on the form is issue before the court. The question that already defies common sense.

 

[XD-9Guy]

This definitely a big deal, this is a big foothold decision for universal background checks if it goes the wrong way. I hope his legal counsel is up to the task.

 

[dennishoddy]

The Supreme Court took up a new gun rights case on Wednesday, weighing whether it should be a crime for someone to buy a gun for somebody else, if both people are legally allowed to own one.

This falls into the occasion when I went to BP in Tulsa. I have a credit card that gives me free air miles and we use it for everything. My buddy said he wanted the rifle and agreed to let me buy it, and he would pay me back in cash. He agreed to fill out the yellow sheet.

Well, the counter guy said that wasn't going to happen, so he did his job, but I always thought it was a stupid rule.

 

[Defnestor]

"Are you actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) on this form?"
"Did you pack your own luggage?"
"Do you have fireworks/people/drugs hidden in your vehicle?"

 

[JxxxOxxxE]

I've always wondered the governments interpretation of buying a gun as a gift for someone...maybe this will clear that up too...

 

[dennishoddy]

You can buy one and gift it to a kid?

 

[SoonerBorn]

Good luck enforcing it.