Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

[g5000]

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.

Bullshit.

He filled out a Form 4473. Here is what section 11.a. reads:

Are you the actual tranferee/buyer of the firearm(s) list on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

That bolding is in the actual question on the form.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It does not protect the dealer n the slightest. I sold guns that ended up at crime scenes. There was no liability on my part because once the thing leaves my shop my control and responsibility ends.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

That's the problem. That sale should be illegal. Because you used the word "indents" meaning he's a trafficker, a criminal. You are selling to a criminal in furtherance of his crimes. You are part of criminal conspiracy.

If there was a background check and a record of the sale, a pink slip transfer of ownership, police could trace the gun back to the last legal owner, which would be…. NOT you. But the criminal you unknowingly sold to.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Bullshit.

He filled out a Form 4473. Here is what section 11.a. reads:

Are you the actual tranferee/buyer of the firearm(s) list on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

That bolding is in the actual question on the form.

Correct. Abramski's argument was that the intent of the GCA was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of prohibited persons. Since neither he nor his uncle was prohibited there should not have been an issue. The languageof the question was drafted by ATF, exceeding their authority, so he claimed. The Court disagreed.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Another "victory" for the fascists.

FREEMEN should ignore the ruling. Black marketeers should ignore the ruling.

There isn't supposed to be ANY Law requiring federal background checks

 

[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.

It does not protect the dealer n the slightest. I sold guns that ended up at crime scenes. There was no liability on my part because once the thing leaves my shop my control and responsibility ends.

You must be a complete moron. And you sound like the uncaring unethical bastards that happily flood the criminal black-market with guns because you can't be held responsible.


An ETHICAL dealer would want to know if he were selling a gun to someone who intended to sell/ give it to a criminal. If he is lied to, at least he did his due diligence.

 

[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?

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

That's hilarious. Here the gun-haters are doing their best to violate the 2nd amendment, which flatly prohibits them from making laws that prevent Abramski and his uncle from doing what they did.

And they turn around and lisp in almost the same breath that finding a law inconvenient, doesn't mean it shouldn't be obeyed.

Do you suppose these people will ever have the intellectual capacity to see how ridiculous they sound with such laughable contradictions?

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

Is there a Constitutional provision saying that the right of the people to move down the street unimpeded, shall not be infringed?

There is one about owning guns. But you don't seem to have any problems violating that one.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That's the problem. That sale should be illegal. Because you used the word "indents" meaning he's a trafficker, a criminal. You are selling to a criminal in furtherance of his crimes. You are part of criminal conspiracy.

If there was a background check and a record of the sale, a pink slip transfer of ownership, police could trace the gun back to the last legal owner, which would be…. NOT you. But the criminal you unknowingly sold to.

how can a sale which is legal become illegal? Who iused the word "indents"? You mean intend. The seller cannot possibly know what is in the mind of the buyer. Mind reading is not required to become a dealer.
If what you said was the case, the police could trace the last legal owner. Who then had the gun stolen and then was used i a crime. That's happened more times than I can count.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

It does not protect the dealer n the slightest. I sold guns that ended up at crime scenes. There was no liability on my part because once the thing leaves my shop my control and responsibility ends.

You must be a complete moron. And you sound like the uncaring unethical bastards that happily flood the criminal black-market with guns because you can't be held responsible.


An ETHICAL dealer would want to know if he were selling a gun to someone who intended to sell/ give it to a criminal. If he is lied to, at least he did his due diligence.

You sound like the uncaring unethical bastards that authored the GUN FREE ZONES .

Black marketeers know what to do.

Buy them from the Mexican and/or Russian Mafia and flood the markets with AK47's.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It does not protect the dealer n the slightest. I sold guns that ended up at crime scenes. There was no liability on my part because once the thing leaves my shop my control and responsibility ends.

You must be a complete moron. And you sound like the uncaring unethical bastards that happily flood the criminal black-market with guns because you can't be held responsible.


An ETHICAL dealer would want to know if he were selling a gun to someone who intended to sell/ give it to a criminal. If he is lied to, at least he did his due diligence.

No dealer I know puts his customers through the 3d degree. Every dealer I know, myself included, will stop a sale if there is any indication it is a straw purchase. But absent any indication how can you know?

 

[hazlnut]

SUPREME COURT SAYS: "no, you can't lie to by guns".


I'm shocked we needed the supreme court to tell us that.

 

[Contumacious]

It does not protect the dealer n the slightest. I sold guns that ended up at crime scenes. There was no liability on my part because once the thing leaves my shop my control and responsibility ends.

You must be a complete moron. And you sound like the uncaring unethical bastards that happily flood the criminal black-market with guns because you can't be held responsible.


An ETHICAL dealer would want to know if he were selling a gun to someone who intended to sell/ give it to a criminal. If he is lied to, at least he did his due diligence.

No dealer I know puts his customers through the 3d degree. Every dealer I know, myself included, will stop a sale if there is any indication it is a straw purchase. But absent any indication how can you know?

That is really stupid.

Prosecutors can readily indict a ham sandwich.

There are many Americans who are either guilty of victimless crime or were to poor to defend themselves . Or worse yet, they are the victim of a corrupt , prejudiced judge who ignored the evidence in order to convict an individual whom he thought was guilty.

Straw purchases must continue.

.

 

[Contumacious]

SUPREME COURT SAYS: "no, you can't lie to by guns".


I'm shocked we needed the supreme court to tell us that.

I am shocked that you believe the SCOTUS has the autority to tell us that.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

SUPREME COURT SAYS: "no, you can't lie to by guns".


I'm shocked we needed the supreme court to tell us that.

Why not? People lie on every other purchase. What is achieved by prohibitng one lawful person from buying a firearm for another lawful person? And you understand that as long as that is a gift it is perfectly legitimate, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The case had nothing to do with selling to a prohibited person or what a buyer/seller knew or didn't know, the case concerned the buyer who violated the law by intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the purchase.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The case had nothing to do with selling to a prohibited person or what a buyer/seller knew or didn't know, the case concerned the buyer who violated the law by intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the purchase.

Actually it was not the law. That was the ATF's interpretation. You are correct that the case is about one person who is lawful buying a gun for another person, who is also lawful. There is no question that if that transaction is a gift, then it is 100% OK. What fouled it up was the money changing hands prior to the sale from the dealer. That really makes no sense. Had the uncle not written a check and noted Glock 19 on it and then claimed the gun was a gift there would be no case at all.
Can someone explain why it's OK for a person to buy a gun for another person as a gift but it becomes prohibited if money changes hands?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

The case had nothing to do with selling to a prohibited person or what a buyer/seller knew or didn't know, the case concerned the buyer who violated the law by intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the purchase.

The "Law" is unconstitutional. it has no legal effect. The ruling must be ignored by freemen.

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

Of course, the 2nd amendment flatly prohibits government from making any law that restrict Abramski and/or his uncle from buying a gun. But this fact was never addressed by the Supremes.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Of course, the 2nd amendment flatly prohibits government from making any law that restrict Abramski and/or his uncle from buying a gun. But this fact was never addressed by the Supremes.

Exactly.

So freemen must use the it was intended to be a gift defense if the stormtroopers become aware of the transaction.

.