Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

[Yurt]

Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law does not allow someone to buy a gun for someone else even if both are legally eligible to own firearms.

The 5-4 ruling on so-called straw purchasing came down in the case of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., who bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Va., in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa.

Federal officials brought charges against Abramski because he assured the Virginia dealer he was the actual buyer of the weapon, even though he had already agreed to buy the gun for his uncle.

The high court ruled that the federal background check law does apply to Abramski, rejecting Abramski's argument that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.

Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party | Fox News

will anti gun nutters be happy now? what more do you want?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yep, the SUpremes announced that buying a gun for someone else, even if you and he are both "qualified", violates the law.

They did not address the question of whether that law was constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a non-issue, as it pertains to the application of the law, not its legitimacy, nor the ability of citizens to purchase or possess firearms:

Federal officials brought charges against Abramski because he assured the Virginia dealer he was the actual buyer of the weapon, even though he had already agreed to buy the gun for his uncle.

The high court ruled that the federal background check law does apply to Abramski, rejecting Abramski's argument that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.

"We hold that such a misrepresentation is punishable under the statute, whether or not the true buyer could have purchased the gun without the straw," the court ruled.

Prohibiting straw purchases has little to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as it has no impact on an individual’s ability to obtain a firearm, and addresses only those seeking to violate the law by securing a firearm for a prohibited person.

This ruling is a wise and consistent application of the law, dealing with the issue of misrepresentation to intentionally violate the law.

All Abramski needed to do was to have his FFL in Virginia ship the Glock to his uncle’s FFL in Pennsylvania.

Otherwise, to perceive this as some sort of ‘victory’ for advocates of gun control is ignorant and inane.

 

[Yurt]

and if the decision had gone the other way, CCJ would be proclaiming the decision a victory....

 

[emilynghiem]

Yep, the SUpremes announced that buying a gun for someone else, even if you and he are both "qualified", violates the law.

They did not address the question of whether that law was constitutional.

Little-Acorn
I'm having trouble keeping track of what choices are okay or not okay.
Maybe I need to set up a chart?
Listing all the things that liberals approve or don't approve.

So far:
the choice of guns = NO to individual choice and YES to govt control
the choice of health care = NO to individuals choice and YES to govt control
the choice of prayer or creation in schools is NO to individuals and YES to govt bans

But on:
choice of abortion = YES to individuals and NO to govt control

And even stronger on:
choice of birth control = YES to individual choice, and FORCING businesses to provide it

And yet even stronger on:
gay couples = NO to individual choice, and FORCING businesses to provide services

I guess I need more categories for
fast food, sugary drinks, and other dangers that pose greater risk of harm to the public than abortion which shouldn't be regulated. While all these other things require it!

Thank goodness for Liberals looking out for public health.
Except when it comes to "fetuses" because that's too intrusive for govt.
Everything else is fair game for govt to regulate.

(I just need to make a chart to keep track of what
govt should REGULATE and what it should MANDATE.)

How can we fund enough govt to control all these areas of our lives?
We better cut the military budget so we can redirect those tax dollars to cover the costs
Or create govt jobs for Veterans to police our sugary drinks, fast food and school lunches!

 

[The Rabbi]

This is a non-issue, as it pertains to the application of the law, not its legitimacy, nor the ability of citizens to purchase or possess firearms:

Federal officials brought charges against Abramski because he assured the Virginia dealer he was the actual buyer of the weapon, even though he had already agreed to buy the gun for his uncle.

The high court ruled that the federal background check law does apply to Abramski, rejecting Abramski's argument that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.

"We hold that such a misrepresentation is punishable under the statute, whether or not the true buyer could have purchased the gun without the straw," the court ruled.

Prohibiting straw purchases has little to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as it has no impact on an individual’s ability to obtain a firearm, and addresses only those seeking to violate the law by securing a firearm for a prohibited person.

This ruling is a wise and consistent application of the law, dealing with the issue of misrepresentation to intentionally violate the law.

All Abramski needed to do was to have his FFL in Virginia ship the Glock to his uncle’s FFL in Pennsylvania.

Otherwise, to perceive this as some sort of ‘victory’ for advocates of gun control is ignorant and inane.

You spew ignorance once more. It is tiresome.
If you restrict how people obtain firearms, you are restricting their right. Whether it is a legitimate restriction in this case is another matter.
THe entire case in fact hinged on the claim that both Abramski and his uncle were not prohibited persons so the straw purchase clause should not come into play. That arguent was rejected by the court.
Abramski lawfullt broght the gun to a dealer in PA for transfer to his uncle. That was absolutely legal and not an issue. The issue was the initial purchase, which he made explicitly for the uncle.
It doesnt affect much as ATF's ruling has always been what the SC held. But it is a blown chance to roll back the bureaurcratic state some.

 

[emilynghiem]

and if the decision had gone the other way, CCJ would be proclaiming the decision a victory....

Can liberals and conservatives work out an agreement
to INTERPRET the Second Amendment where "people"
applies to LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

I do NOT think it needs to be AMENDED literally to
change "people" to "Law Abiding Citizens"
to achieve this same agreement on the SPIRIT of the law.

If we can agree IN SPIRIT that is the real issue,
not to deprive LAW ABIDING citizens of rights but to distinguish
those who have criminal intent or mental incompetence, etc.

Can we AGREE the "right to bear arms" applies to
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?
Will that get all groups on the same page?

 

[emilynghiem]

This is a non-issue, as it pertains to the application of the law, not its legitimacy, nor the ability of citizens to purchase or possess firearms:

Federal officials brought charges against Abramski because he assured the Virginia dealer he was the actual buyer of the weapon, even though he had already agreed to buy the gun for his uncle.

The high court ruled that the federal background check law does apply to Abramski, rejecting Abramski's argument that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.

"We hold that such a misrepresentation is punishable under the statute, whether or not the true buyer could have purchased the gun without the straw," the court ruled.

Prohibiting straw purchases has little to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as it has no impact on an individual’s ability to obtain a firearm, and addresses only those seeking to violate the law by securing a firearm for a prohibited person.

This ruling is a wise and consistent application of the law, dealing with the issue of misrepresentation to intentionally violate the law.

All Abramski needed to do was to have his FFL in Virginia ship the Glock to his uncle’s FFL in Pennsylvania.

Otherwise, to perceive this as some sort of ‘victory’ for advocates of gun control is ignorant and inane.

You spew ignorance once more. It is tiresome.
If you restrict how people obtain firearms, you are restricting their right. Whether it is a legitimate restriction in this case is another matter.
THe entire case in fact hinged on the claim that both Abramski and his uncle were not prohibited persons so the straw purchase clause should not come into play. That arguent was rejected by the court.
Abramski lawfullt broght the gun to a dealer in PA for transfer to his uncle. That was absolutely legal and not an issue. The issue was the initial purchase, which he made explicitly for the uncle.
It doesnt affect much as ATF's ruling has always been what the SC held. But it is a blown chance to roll back the bureaurcratic state some.

So this is more like the "voter ID" issue of people voting for relatives?

One is the liberal version, one is the conservative version
of arguing for or against "overregulation by govt" that obstructs freedom?

 

[Little-Acorn]

addresses only those seeking to violate the law by securing a firearm for a prohibited person.

Which this guy clearly wasn't.

He went to a gun store, filled out the paperwork, and the gun dealer ran the background check as required by law. The background check came back clean: Abramski was legally qualified to buy a gun.

On the question on the form, where it asked him if he was the actual person buying the gun, Abramski checked "Yes" - a false statement, since he was using his uncle's money, and intended to sell it to his uncle.

Shortly afterward, Abramski brought his uncle and the gun, to a Federally licensed gun dealer, to legally transfer the gun to his uncle, as required by law. The dealer ran the background check on the uncle, and it came back clean - the uncle was also qualified to buy and own a gun. They filled out all the forms, this time with no false statements, and completely the transaction.

The only violation of law, was where Abramski checked "Yes" on the for when he was first buying the gun.

It is clear that Abramski was NOT trying to buy a gun for a person not qualified to own one (felon, etc.). But he definitely did violate the letter of the law.


My only question is: Where are all the people who keep screaming for "reasonable exceptions", that should be applied even when they are not written explicitly into a law?

Those people have been strangely quiet in this case.

 

[hazlnut]

Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law does not allow someone to buy a gun for someone else even if both are legally eligible to own firearms.

The 5-4 ruling on so-called straw purchasing came down in the case of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., who bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Va., in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa.

Federal officials brought charges against Abramski because he assured the Virginia dealer he was the actual buyer of the weapon, even though he had already agreed to buy the gun for his uncle.

The high court ruled that the federal background check law does apply to Abramski, rejecting Abramski's argument that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.

Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party | Fox News

will anti gun nutters be happy now? what more do you want?

Um… we already had that.


No one is anti-gun. We're anti- irresponsible gun owner/dealer selling to criminal or trafficker.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No one is anti-gun.

Uh-huh.

We're anti- irresponsible gun owner/dealer selling to criminal or trafficker.

So where is your protest objecting to this ruling, since Abramski clearly had no intention of selling the gun to a criminal or trafficker, and in fact did not do that?

 

[The Rabbi]

That was the whole issue. Abramski did not deliver the gun to a prohibited person.

 

[g5000]

That was the whole issue. Abramski did not deliver the gun to a prohibited person.

And the seller knows this...how?

 

[Little-Acorn]

That was the whole issue. Abramski did not deliver the gun to a prohibited person.

The primary issue is whether he violated Federal law by checking "Yes" to the question about being the actual purchaser. And he did, and he clearly violated the law by doing so.

But the secondary question was whether the law is correctly written. It was obviously intended to keep people from buying a gun for someone who could not otherwise get one.

But someone who was not doing that at all, got tripped up by it.

Where are the people who usually scream about gun law, that "reasonable exceptions to the law" should be made, even when such exceptions are not explicitly written into the law? What could be more reasonable, than making an exception in Abramski's case?

 

[The Rabbi]

That was the whole issue. Abramski did not deliver the gun to a prohibited person.

And the seller knows this...how?

Irrelevant.

 

[hazlnut]

No one is anti-gun.

Uh-huh.

We're anti- irresponsible gun owner/dealer selling to criminal or trafficker.

So where is your protest objecting to this ruling, since Abramski clearly had no intention of selling the gun to a criminal or trafficker, and in fact did not do that?

Just because a law inconveniences you, doesn't not mean it is not necessary.


No one likes stopping at a traffic light late at night when the streets are deserted.


The straw buyer laws are still too weak IMO.

 

[g5000]

That was the whole issue. Abramski did not deliver the gun to a prohibited person.

And the seller knows this...how?

Irrelevant.

It is completely relevant and the entire point of the law. Abramski violated that law. Open and shut.

 

[The Rabbi]

That was the whole issue. Abramski did not deliver the gun to a prohibited person.

The primary issue is whether he violated Federal law by checking "Yes" to the question about being the actual purchaser. And he did, and he clearly violated the law by doing so.

But the secondary question was whether the law is correctly written. It was obviously intended to keep people from buying a gun for someone who could not otherwise get one.

But someone who was not doing that at all, got tripped up by it.

Where are the people who usually scream about gun law, that "reasonable exceptions to the law" should be made, even when such exceptions are not explicitly written into the law? What could be more reasonable, than making an exception in Abramski's case?

No that is not correct. The issue was whether the Gun Control Act's intention was to keep guns out of the hnds of prohibited persons, as Abramski maintained, or was it to stop straw purchases altogether, which is not in the text anywhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

And the seller knows this...how?

Irrelevant.

It completely relevant and the entire point of the law. Abramski violated that law. Open and shut.

It is not relevant in the slightest. If I sell a gun to someone who intends to sell it to a prohibited person how am I supposed to know that? I can't possibly. Yet the sale is legal.

 

[hazlnut]

This law also protect gun dealer.

Basically, everybody, DEALER or private owner should know exactly who they are selling to.


If all gun owners and gun dealers were more responsible about that, the black market economy for guns would shift from buyer to seller driving prices way up.