Supreme Court takes up straw purchase conviction case

[GRIZ 3,369]

With firearms and ammo, this IS different than an LEO discount as most of the time, the reduced LEO price excludes the excise tax n the firearm.

Excise tax is excluded for agency purchases. Individual officer pays excise tax.

[raz-0 1,259]

Excise tax is excluded for agency purchases. Individual officer pays excise tax.

 

Supposed to or do is the question. I know there was some serious inter-retailer fighting that got pretty public with regards to using them to undercut normal retail pricing and making it impossible for some stores to compete. Form the descriptions  it seemed that 1) the excise collection doesn't work as a rebate, and they arrive at the FFL with no excise tax collected and 2) most of the people involved in the discussion seemed to imply they were not collecting it form the individual officers. Might have been with letterhead though. The general gist seemed to be it was honor system though. This was years ago, so dunno if the manufacturers cracked down on it and adjust their programs. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

Supposed to or do is the question. I know there was some serious inter-retailer fighting that got pretty public with regards to using them to undercut normal retail pricing and making it impossible for some stores to compete. Form the descriptions  it seemed that 1) the excise collection doesn't work as a rebate, and they arrive at the FFL with no excise tax collected and 2) most of the people involved in the discussion seemed to imply they were not collecting it form the individual officers. Might have been with letterhead though. The general gist seemed to be it was honor system though. This was years ago, so dunno if the manufacturers cracked down on it and adjust their programs.

 

That may be. To my experience, going back to the middle 70s, individual officer always paid the excise tax. That includes individual officer purchases made on a letterhead.

[raz-0 1,259]

That may be. To my experience, going back to the middle 70s, individual officer always paid the excise tax. That includes individual officer purchases made on a letterhead.

We'll I know glock's current posted policy for blue label sales is that individual officers can also get the pricing straight from them if they have letterhead. If your department makes you byog, it should in theory fit the parameters to skip excise.

 

An ffl who knew current policy would have to pipe in to be sure.

[bry@n 195]

I can attest to that. The forms I've seen making orders with Glock.

[Malsua 1,422]

The court heard arguments yesterday and it looks like this is going to be another 5-4 split.

 

The larger consequence of this ruling is that it will all but eliminate the possibility of "universal background checks".  The reasoning seems to be that the ruling will state once and for all that the government has no business intruding upon a transaction between two legal gun owners.   This is why the liberals are all up in a funk abouts about it.

 

I'm not sure what this means in NJ, but it would seem to me that it would make any paperwork illegal for transfers between two people who are legally able to own guns.   Now I understand that NJ, CA, NY and other gun grabber states will not accede to this willingly so it probably won't change at all here in NJ.  That said, it could mean that two legal purchasers in NJ who did a transfer without paperwork and were prosecuted for it, could appeal it to the supreme court and win, invalidating the P2P or COE for private transfers.

 

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.  

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/22/supreme-court-abramski-decision-will-determine-oba/?page=all

 

[snip]

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to side with the plaintiff’s position that the ATF had overstepped into trying to create criminal law. Referring to the Gun Control Act, the chief justice said, “This language is fought over tooth and nail by people on the gun-control side and the gun-ownership side.”

 

He called it “very problematic” for the government to cite going after law abiding people who resell firearms as a purpose of the law since “there are no words in the statute that have anything to do with straw purchasers.”

 

Mr. Obama and his gun-grabbing cohorts invented the vanilla-sounding “universal background check” to disguise their agenda to control every firearm transaction in the country.

 

Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told reporters last week that if Abramski is overturned, it would “open a vast loophole in the background check law.” That is pure fear-mongering to coerce people into willingly give up their rights.

 

There is no reason for the government to prevent, much less prosecute,a former member of law enforcement from buying a gun for his law-abiding uncle. The Supreme Court should overturn the appeals court, but more importantly, make clear that the government has no right to intervene in private gun transfers between honest American citizens.

 

The ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment, the prevention of tyranny, depends on the government not having a registry or knowing who is armed.

 

[Vlad G 345]

Don't ever try to handicap SCOTUS decisions, they may very well return a different answer then what you and I thinks makes sense. <tinfoil> Heck, who the hell knows what the NSA has on Roberts </tinfoil>

[Scrappy 0]

I wonder, if the SCOTUS does rule in favor of the 2A, if this will make it legal for my gf and I to take eachothers long guns to the range without having to fill out a coe.  What about handguns?  Thoughts?

[Malsua 1,422]

I wonder, if the SCOTUS does rule in favor of the 2A, if this will make it legal for my gf and I to take eachothers long guns to the range without having to fill out a coe.  What about handguns?  Thoughts?

 

That's pretty much what it will do.  That said, NJ will need to be dragged, tooth and nail, through the courts until they recognize a decision like this, if the supreme court rules this way.

[ryan_j 0]

That's pretty much what it will do.  That said, NJ will need to be dragged, tooth and nail, through the courts until they recognize a decision like this, if the supreme court rules this way.

 

I'd say once the S.Ct rules, you're now free to go and disobey the now unconstitutional law. 

 

Besides, it's not like people don't do that already anyway. 

[ryan_j 0]

Don't ever try to handicap SCOTUS decisions, they may very well return a different answer then what you and I thinks makes sense. <tinfoil> Heck, who the hell knows what the NSA has on Roberts </tinfoil>

 

Not really the NSA, but there are rumors. That said, being a family man myself, I know how one is attached to one's children and will do anything for them. 

[M4BGRINGO 139]

Yes, but it needs to happen. There should be no need for a COE between to legal FID holders for handguns or long guns.

[illy 1]

Maybe I'm way off here, but there's no reason why a ruling in favor of Abramski would eliminate all paperwork between private sellers.

Despite J. Scalia's excellent exchange w/ Abramski's attorney
 

“What about somebody who is qualified to own a firearm? Can I take a firearm that I own and say, ‘You know, it’s yours?’” Justice Scalia asked the plaintiff’s attorney, who confirmed that it was lawful.

He continued, “Don’t have to register it? I don’t have to go through a firearm dealer, right? It’s my gun, and I can give it to somebody else who’s qualified.”

SCOTUS could rule that BATFE overstepped and question 11a is out. But that doesn't automatically invalidate all  state laws requiring paperwork for private sales, or even requiring all purchases  go through FFLs. 

 

Of course I really hope the decision is that wide ranging, but the conservatives on SCOTUS tend to address as little as possible (i.e. only the actual issue at hand), unlike the liberals who try to make law rather than interpret.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Maybe I'm way off here, but there's no reason why a ruling in favor of Abramski would eliminate all paperwork between private sellers.

Despite J. Scalia's excellent exchange w/ Abramski's attorney

 

 

 

SCOTUS could rule that BATFE overstepped and question 11a is out. But that doesn't automatically invalidate all  state laws requiring paperwork for private sales, or even requiring all purchases  go through FFLs. 

 

Of course I really hope the decision is that wide ranging, but the conservatives on SCOTUS tend to address as little as possible (i.e. only the actual issue at hand), unlike the liberals who try to make law rather than interpret.

While this case may have repercussions to NJ firearms laws it depends on how the decision is worded. States can have laws more restrictive than federal law but not contrary to federal law. SCOTUS has already said states can have "reasonable restrictions" of their own. SCOTUS can say that by making the exchange through another FFL and it was transferred to a esqualified person no crime was commited. We have to wait and see what impact, if any this will have on NJ gun laws.

[ryan_j 0]

Decision is in. Abramski lost.

 

Saying you are the actual transferee and then turning around and selling the gun to someone else is going to land you in trouble.

 

So, no Glock blue label for you.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

[Scrappy 0]

It looks like we can no longer rely on the scotus to uphold the 2nd Amendment.

[springfieldxds 0]

well i guess now we know why scotus has decided not to hear any of the carrying cases, im not a tinfoil hat guy myself but im starting to feel like the whole nsa having something on Kennedy  might have a little truth in it, i mean we get Heller and McDonald and now Kennedy is agreeing with Kagen 

 

sorry meant Kennedy not Roberts 

[Babyface Finster 45]

It looks like we can no longer rely on the scotus to uphold the 2nd Amendment.

 

We never could.  The Supreme Court is no less political than any other government institution.

[siderman 1,137]

well i guess now we know why scotus has decided not to hear any of the carrying cases, im not a tinfoil hat guy myself but im starting to feel like the whole nsa having something on Roberts might have a little truth in it, i mean we get Heller and McDonald and now Roberts is agreeing with Kagen

I must have missed that memo, could you elaborate on that a little?

[ryan_j 0]

It looks like we can no longer rely on the scotus to uphold the 2nd Amendment.

 

Except that this is not about the 2nd amendment. This is about a statute. 

[ryan_j 0]

well i guess now we know why scotus has decided not to hear any of the carrying cases, im not a tinfoil hat guy myself but im starting to feel like the whole nsa having something on Roberts might have a little truth in it, i mean we get Heller and McDonald and now Roberts is agreeing with Kagen 

 

 

Roberts? Roberts joined in the dissent with Scalia and the conservatives. 

 

Kennedy was the swing vote and he joined with the liberals on this one. 

 

This is NOT an indictment on Kennedy with regards to the 2A. Not in the least. 

[illy 1]

Except that this is not about the 2nd amendment. This is about a statute. 

 

Well...

It's about that. But it's about the 2nd as well, just not overtly.

 

This case, the statute in question, the agency's draconian interpretation of that statute, the Court's agreement with same and the agency's very existence are all the result fo the 2nd Amendment being relegated to 2nd class status among the BOR.

[jackandjill 683]

" But Abramski now focuses on a new and more ambitious argument, which he concedes no
court has previously accepted. See Brief for Petitioner i.3.In brief, he alleges that a false response to Question 11.a.
is never material to a gun sale’s legality, whether or not the actual buyer is eligible to own a gun. We begin with
that fundamental question, "

 

Looks like Abramski tried to make this 2A issue by challenging the legality (or the material value) of the information presented in that form.

[n4p226r 105]

so he buys a gun and sells it (through an FFL) to another person that is allowed to own guns but its illegal.  

 

he buys a gun, decides after a week that he doesn't like it, and then sells it.  it's legal

 

and now he can't own any guns?

[ryan_j 0]

" But Abramski now focuses on a new and more ambitious argument, which he concedes no

court has previously accepted. See Brief for Petitioner i.3.In brief, he alleges that a false response to Question 11.a.

is never material to a gun sale’s legality, whether or not the actual buyer is eligible to own a gun. We begin with

that fundamental question, "

 

Looks like Abramski tried to make this 2A issue by challenging the legality (or the material value) of the information presented in that form.

 

They are saying that they admit that it's a straw purchase, but the intent of the law was to stop prohibited persons from acquiring firearms so it doesn't really count because they both were not prohibited person. The best analog of this is the Brian Aitken hollow point case, where it was argued that the NJ hollow point statute was to make the possession of hollow points similar to that of handguns, and that it was a technical mistake not to have language that allowed one to move from house to house with them. The judges didn't buy it and they interpreted the statute as written.

[NJPatriot 0]

Excellent dissent by Scalia et al.

[jackandjill 683]

They are saying that they admit that it's a straw purchase, but the intent of the law was to stop prohibited persons from acquiring firearms so it doesn't really count because they both were not prohibited person. The best analog of this is the Brian Aitken hollow point case, where it was argued that the NJ hollow point statute was to make the possession of hollow points similar to that of handguns, and that it was a technical mistake not to have language that allowed one to move from house to house with them. The judges didn't buy it and they interpreted the statute as written.

As I read it, Abramski pushed for arguing the whole things as moot i.e shouldnt matter even IF the other person is prohibited or not.

[jackandjill 683]

so he buys a gun and sells it (through an FFL) to another person that is allowed to own guns but its illegal.  

 

he buys a gun, decides after a week that he doesn't like it, and then sells it.  it's legal

 

and now he can't own any guns?

I dont think he (Abramski) was selling through FFL.  Abramski was really arguing that this whole "straw purchase" argument has to go away and its none of anyones business what happens to the firearm after the purchaser walks away from that counter.

[springfieldxds 0]

Roberts? Roberts joined in the dissent with Scalia and the conservatives. 

 

Kennedy was the swing vote and he joined with the liberals on this one. 

 

This is NOT an indictment on Kennedy with regards to the 2A. Not in the least. 

why would you think this 

[ryan_j 0]

why would you think this 

 

Because it's not a 2A case. It's a question of statute. The constitutionality of the statute was never called into question.