FULL Gun Rights? Uh, Not So Fast Says Supreme Court!

[PoliticalTorch]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cool, the black market took a hit today. You know, most of the gun crimes committed in America are via illegally purchased firearms. I would advise you also to hold your tongue until you hold the Obama Administration accountable for Fast and Furious, were they not the ones who sold firearms to drug cartels? What an irony.

I agree with the decision too. I wouldn't give my firearm to any of my family members until they had a permit and were properly trained with it. And here you are acting like this is something major.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahh, and since when have you heard anyone demanding 'full' gun rights? Nobody in their right mind wants someone or anyone to have full unfettered access to a gun. That's inviting a mass murder to take place. All we want is for citizens who have bought a gun, gotten a permit and have undergone a full mental screening to have all the rights afforded them by the Second Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

The law is clear. You may not buy a weapon specifically for another without disclosing that is what you are doing. In this case to legally allowed citizens screwed up. I understand the opposition to a conviction though. neither one is in fact barred from owning a firearm and both had a background check done.

The nephew should have followed the law and had the dealer ship to another FFL near his uncle so his Uncle could buy the weapon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good ruling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TK, when you understand Fast and Furious, discuss it with us.

 

[daveman]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

 

[OKTexas]

Cool, the black market took a hit today. You know, most of the gun crimes committed in America are via illegally purchased firearms. I would advise you also to hold your tongue until you hold the Obama Administration accountable for Fast and Furious, were they not the ones who sold firearms to Drug Cartels? What an irony.

I agree with the decision too. I wouldn't give my firearm to any of my family members until they had a permit and were properly trained with it. And here you are acting like this is something major.

They require a permit to own a gun in GA?

And I agree with the ruling to a point, this case was clear that it was a straw purchase, because it was clear that he had the intent at the time of the purchase of giving it to his uncle. Now I see the DOJ using this ruling to go after others who purchased a firearm, kept it for a year or two and gifted it or sold it to another, and trying to call that a straw purchase.

 

[Peach]

Began under Bush, CONTINUED under Obama, unto 2011, no excuses:

"Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them."[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7] The Chambers case[who?] began in October 2009, and eventually became known in February 2010 as "Operation Fast and Furious" after agents discovered some of the suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.[1]

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Ahh, and since when have you heard anyone demanding 'full' gun rights? Nobody in their right mind wants someone or anyone to have full unfettered access to a gun. That's inviting a mass murder to take place. All we want is for citizens who have bought a gun, gotten a permit and have undergone a full mental screening to have all the rights afforded them by the Second Amendment.

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns. Fools! This should teach them that they need to Obey The Law, especially with this new High Court ruling!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

it was a clear case of a straw purchase

the uncle paid the nephew in advance of the sale

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ahh, and since when have you heard anyone demanding 'full' gun rights? Nobody in their right mind wants someone or anyone to have full unfettered access to a gun. That's inviting a mass murder to take place. All we want is for citizens who have bought a gun, gotten a permit and have undergone a full mental screening to have all the rights afforded them by the Second Amendment.

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns. Fools! This should teach them that they need to Obey The Law, especially with this new High Court ruling!

the ruling does not change anything

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK, when you understand Fast and Furious, discuss it with us.

And you do? Sure, please educate me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahh, and since when have you heard anyone demanding 'full' gun rights? Nobody in their right mind wants someone or anyone to have full unfettered access to a gun. That's inviting a mass murder to take place. All we want is for citizens who have bought a gun, gotten a permit and have undergone a full mental screening to have all the rights afforded them by the Second Amendment.

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns. Fools! This should teach them that they need to Obey The Law, especially with this new High Court ruling!

You'll be surprised that 'many people' is not irrevocable proof that everyone wants 'full gun rights.' An intelligent person must understand that there has to be some amount of restrictions on buying a firearm, but not so much so that it takes away the right to own one altogether.

Please, consult Heller vs. DC before attempting further rebuttal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Began under Bush, CONTINUED under Obama, unto 2011, no excuses:

"Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them."[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7] The Chambers case[who?] began in October 2009, and eventually became known in February 2010 as "Operation Fast and Furious" after agents discovered some of the suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.[1]

And the fact that Obama continued it makes him equally as responsible as Bush. No excuses.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns.

Name one.

(yawn)

 

[Peach]

Ahh, and since when have you heard anyone demanding 'full' gun rights? Nobody in their right mind wants someone or anyone to have full unfettered access to a gun. That's inviting a mass murder to take place. All we want is for citizens who have bought a gun, gotten a permit and have undergone a full mental screening to have all the rights afforded them by the Second Amendment.

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns. Fools! This should teach them that they need to Obey The Law, especially with this new High Court ruling!

the ruling does not change anything

No, just helps LE continue to track firearms, after crimes are committed. Yes, most crimes are committed with those in possession of firearms illegally.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Abramski unquestionably violated the law, checking off "Yes" to a question about whether he was the really the person buying the gun. In fact, he was using his uncle's money, and intended to turn the gun over to his uncle.

Abromski also went through the normal background check, and came out clean and eligible to buy the gun.

And when he wanted to turn the gun over to his uncle, he brought his uncle to a Federally-licensed gun store and had him go through the background check, too. And it came up clean - his uncle was also eligible to buy and own a gun.

The law was intended to prevent people from buying a gun for someone who was NOT eligible. Clearly, Abramski and his uncle were not in that category. But he did violate the law, no question.

BTW, the 2nd amendment says it's flatly illegal for government to make a law interfering with Abramski or his uncle buying a gun. But the Supreme Court carefully didn't address that fact.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cool, the black market took a hit today. You know, most of the gun crimes committed in America are via illegally purchased firearms. I would advise you also to hold your tongue until you hold the Obama Administration accountable for Fast and Furious, were they not the ones who sold firearms to Drug Cartels? What an irony.

I agree with the decision too. I wouldn't give my firearm to any of my family members until they had a permit and were properly trained with it. And here you are acting like this is something major.

They require a permit to own a gun in GA?

And I agree with the ruling to a point, this case was clear that it was a straw purchase, because it was clear that he had the intent at the time of the purchase of giving it to his uncle. Now I see the DOJ using this ruling to go after others who purchased a firearm, kept it for a year or two and gifted it or sold it to another, and trying to call that a straw purchase.

Yes we do. Georgia works on a 'shall issue' basis. Meaning we require someone to have a permit, explained here:

SHALL ISSUE:


States with "shall issue" systems require a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, and applicants must meet meet certain well defined objective criteria. However, unlike "may issue" systems, a "shall issue" state removes all arbitrary bias and discretion, compelling the issuing authority to award the permit. These laws require that the empowered authority “shall issue” a permit to applicants who meet the criteria defined by law.


Generally, the criteria for issuance of a license include proof of residency within the state, a minimum age, fingerprints for a background check, no record of mental illness or adjudication of mental defect by a court, proof or certification from an acceptable handgun safety class (including live-fire range qualification exercises to demonstrate safe and acceptable proficiency), and submitting the required application fee. Ohio is an example of a state with a "shall issue" system of licensing. The details of the requirements differ from state to state. Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington do not require any certificate of firearms training.


Shall issue states include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

While Alaska and Arizona are states without mandatory licensing (to carry within the borders of those states), they do provide a "shall issue" system of licensing, in order to allow residents to take advantage of reciprocity when traveling to other states. Alabama and Connecticut are, as defined in their laws, "may issue" states, as their laws provide a governing party with some measure of final discretion. In practice, however the policies of the issuing authorities direct them to approve the applications of citizens who have met the requirements for licensing.

Shall-Issue, May-Issue, No-Issue and Unrestricted States | Buckeye Firearms Association

My dad had to get permits for his guns when he lived here.

As per this ruling, and with any others, it can be misconstrued. The DOJ will indeed look for ways to distort the spirit and meaning of this ruling. As long as the giftee has the proper permits and documentation, plus all of the homework done, not even the DOJ can claim such a thing.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Cool, the black market took a hit today. You know, most of the gun crimes committed in America are via illegally purchased firearms. I would advise you also to hold your tongue until you hold the Obama Administration accountable for Fast and Furious, were they not the ones who sold firearms to Drug Cartels? What an irony.

I agree with the decision too. I wouldn't give my firearm to any of my family members until they had a permit and were properly trained with it. And here you are acting like this is something major.

They require a permit to own a gun in GA?

And I agree with the ruling to a point, this case was clear that it was a straw purchase, because it was clear that he had the intent at the time of the purchase of giving it to his uncle. Now I see the DOJ using this ruling to go after others who purchased a firearm, kept it for a year or two and gifted it or sold it to another, and trying to call that a straw purchase.

Now I see the DOJ using this ruling to go after others who purchased a firearm, kept it for a year or two and gifted it or sold it to another, and trying to call that a straw purchase

that would never fly

had the uncle and nephew lived in the same state

and the nephew decided at some point later to sell

it to his uncle or gift it to him

no law would have been broken