Supreme Court takes up straw purchase conviction case

[MidwestPX 172]

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.

The firearm was transferred to his uncle, a PA resident, through a PA FFL. This was legal and the correct way of transfering a handgun from a resident of one state to the resident of another. This isn't what was in question. The issue is did Abramski lie on the 4473? The firearm was clearly not a gift since the uncle paid him for it.

[springfieldxds 0]

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

this i understand but to me it just seems like a clear way to make purchasing a firearm more difficult while making more people prohibited, as someone else stated, you buy a gun with the intent to sell it, you go through the ffl and get all the paperwork and youre breaking the law

 

but if you buy a gun today and decide you dont want it an hour later so you decide to sell, now youre legal 

 

i think Kennedy could have easily understood this and did but didnt want to vote pro gun

 

it was a 2nd A issue with the NRA and over 20 something states who supported Abramski 

 

we all know the law was made to keep prohibited people from acquiring guns, Kennedy knew this too but wanted to give more power to the ATF and make the law broader 

 

this is all my opinion of course which in the end is moot 

[springfieldxds 0]

“Five members of the Supreme Court have decided to make it a federal crime for a lawful gun owner to buy a firearm for another lawful gun owner,” Lund said in a statement sent to TGM by a public relations firm. “No federal statute says any such thing. The Justices are once again legislating from the bench, which violates the Constitution, and enacting a retroactive criminal law, which is even worse.”

 

i couldn't have said it better myself, they're making up laws where there weren't any, sounds like scotus is turning more into the NJ supreme court 

[maintenanceguy 510]

Kagan wrote that "the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers." She said this is undercut if a person can buy a gun for another person.

 

So, once again, it's okay to violate a right as long as the government has a good reason to do so.   Which is exactly the reason these rights were written down - to prevent the government to violate them even if it thought it had a good reason to do so.

 

Do You Still Want SCOTUS to Hear a Right To Carry Case?

[jackandjill 683]

The firearm was transferred to his uncle, a PA resident, through a PA FFL. This was legal and the correct way of transfering a handgun from a resident of one state to the resident of another. This isn't what was in question. The issue is did Abramski lie on the 4473? The firearm was clearly not a gift since the uncle paid him for it.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[jackandjill 683]

Cases like this remind me that its more about letter of the law than spirit of the law. And even SCOTUS will legislate from the bench.

 

Not long ago,  call it panic buying or newbie stupidity/anxiety, I ended up paying for two of same model firearms.   Instead of taking possession at FFL, tried
to have someone else take it (with proper paperwork etc) for their own enjoyment because that was the right thing (in the letter of the law) to do. Ended up with interesting situation at FFL.

 

Anyways, many recommended that I should have just taken the possession and "do whatever I wanted  afterwards".   Glad I did not.

 

----------

 

On a related note, had this been gift, would the outcome be same ?

[MidwestPX 172]

Cases like this remind me that its more about letter of the law than spirit of the law. And even SCOTUS will legislate from the bench.

 

Not long ago,  call it panic buying or newbie stupidity/anxiety, I ended up paying for two of same model firearms.   Instead of taking possession at FFL, tried

to have someone else take it (with proper paperwork etc) for their own enjoyment because that was the right thing (in the letter of the law) to do. Ended up with interesting situation at FFL.

 

Anyways, many recommended that I should have just taken the possession and "do whatever I wanted  afterwards".   Glad I did not.

 

----------

 

On a related note, had this been gift, would the outcome be same ?

If you had someone else take possession and they filled out the background check, regardless of if they paid you for the firearm or not, it wouldn't have been illegal.

 

As for your question about if it was a gift, the outcome would not have been the same. If it was a bonafide gift and money did not change hands, it would have been legal.

[ryan_j 0]

Kagan wrote that "the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers." She said this is undercut if a person can buy a gun for another person.

 

So, once again, it's okay to violate a right as long as the government has a good reason to do so. Which is exactly the reason these rights were written down - to prevent the government to violate them even if it thought it had a good reason to do so.

 

Do You Still Want SCOTUS to Hear a Right To Carry Case?

Without SCOTUS hearing a case absolutely nothing is stopping any state from banning carry other than the electorate. You sound like the guy who doesn't want to go to the doctor because he will give you bad news.

 

Unless you think the makeup of the court will lean more in our favor in the future.

[jackandjill 683]

 

As for your question about if it was a gift, the outcome would not have been the same. If it was a bonafide gift and money did not change hands, it would have been legal.

Interesting.  Were lawmakers just being generous or some other reason behind gift being exempted from straw purchase rule ?

[springfieldxds 0]

Without SCOTUS hearing a case absolutely nothing is stopping any state from banning carry other than the electorate. You sound like the guy who doesn't want to go to the doctor because he will give you bad news.

 

Unless you think the makeup of the court will lean more in our favor in the future.

well theres a very likely chance that republicans will take control of the senate, if that happens we might be able to tip scotus in our favor or at the very least, keep it as it is till we get a republican president 

[springfieldxds 0]

reading through the decision and trying my best to understand it, it sounds like Abramski shot himself in the foot, it seems like he wanted scotus to rule that no straw purchasing was illegal  even if the person receiving the gun couldn't legally own a gun, he says all that matters is that the person at the counter can own the gun

 

this was so broad that even the dissent rejected it and still tried to side with Abramski, if he would've stayed with his original defense, the dissents reasoning, which was that one legal owner can buy a gun for another legal owner, well we might have won the  case

 

am i wrong in this reading?

[jackandjill 683]

reading through the decision and trying my best to understand it, it sounds like Abramski shot himself in the foot, it seems like he wanted scotus to rule that no straw purchasing was illegal  even if the person receiving the gun couldn't legally own a gun, he says all that matters is that the person at the counter can own the gun

 

this was so broad that even the dissent rejected it and still tried to side with Abramski, if he would've stayed with his original defense, the dissents reasoning, which was that one legal owner can buy a gun for another legal owner, well we might have won the  case

 

am i wrong in this reading?

Same here. At the least, it provided fuel to the Sotomayor and team.

[ryan_j 0]

well theres a very likely chance that republicans will take control of the senate, if that happens we might be able to tip scotus in our favor or at the very least, keep it as it is till we get a republican president 

 

I kind of doubt either will happen. Somehow Obama will pull it off, even if it's by illegal voters. 

[springfieldxds 0]

I kind of doubt either will happen. Somehow Obama will pull it off, even if it's by illegal voters. 

you might be right, but i believe at the very least, republicans will take some seats from the dems which might be more than enough to send shock waves through the senate, with that it'll force the more conservative leaning dems to vote with care when it comes to guns and possibly a new scotus appointee 

[DeerSlayer 241]

They are talking about this case on Cam & Company NRA news now. sportsman channel optimum 462.

[njpilot 671]

well theres a very likely chance that republicans will take control of the senate, if that happens we might be able to tip scotus in our favor or at the very least, keep it as it is till we get a republican president

 

No way will SCOTUS "tip" in our favor with Obama as President. He'll, even with a Republican as President it probably wouldn't "tip" our way.

[n4p226r 105]

does anyone know how he actually go caught?

[Damjan 73]

does anyone know how he actually go caught?

He was a suspect in a bank robbery and they searched his home and found the receipt for transferring the gun

 

http://apps.americanbar.org/ababoards/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=14913&threadid=27122

 

Franklin Community Bank in Rocky Mount, Virginia was robbed. The FBI suspected Abramski for the robbery because he had been fired from the police department in 2007 for allegedly stealing money during an investigation; he looked similar to the masked robber; and he was facing personal problems, including a house in foreclosure. Abramski was arrested on charges relating to the bank robbery, and the FBI secured search warrants for his parent's home and his marital home. Upon searching his marital home, the agents seized a green zippered bag from the Franklin Community Bank that contained the receipt for the transfer of the gun to his uncle.

 

The bank robbery charges against Abramski were eventually dropped. However, he was indicted for, and eventually pled guilty to, violation of two federal firearms statutes. These offenses were 1) making a false statement that was material to the lawfulness of a firearm sale and 2) making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a licensed firearms dealer. In his guilty plea, Abramski reserved the right to appeal his failed motions to dismiss.

[ryan_j 0]

you might be right, but i believe at the very least, republicans will take some seats from the dems which might be more than enough to send shock waves through the senate, with that it'll force the more conservative leaning dems to vote with care when it comes to guns and possibly a new scotus appointee 

 

I think as a lame duck, Obama will try to push the most commie, leftist, socialist, anti-gun activist judge he could find. When Republicans block him, he will cry "obstructionism" and the snake Harry Reid will cry crocodile tears. Republicans will be scared about 2016 and backlash from the public and they will cave. 

[njpilot 671]

Surprisingly, looks like CA ruled differently in this case. Man found not guilty of straw purchase.

 

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/10/28/ca-gun-owner-guilty-conspiracy-buying-pistol-cop/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2014-11-04&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter