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.