Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

[muddywings]

I post this in part as informational and in part to ask a question....


http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.



The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.
The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.
Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount.
Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed 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."
Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.
A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers — not purchasers — to run federal background checks on people buying guns.
Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.
The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration.

**Break Break**

So how exactly does NICS work with tracking gun purchases and getting that to LEO to investigate crimes?

Also, while I disagree with verdict, I think there is a lesson to be learned here. Hope you all can see it.

[Rucker61]

I wonder what required time I have to wait after purchasing a firearm before I can legally sell or give it away without breaking this law?

[SuperiorDG]

I wonder what required time I have to wait after purchasing a firearm before I can legally sell or give it away without breaking this law?

Living in Colorado prevents you from breaking this law.

[kidicarus13]

I think there is a lesson to be learned here. Hope you all can see it.


Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. [facepalm]

[wctriumph]

Since the guy had a check for the gun before he purchased it, he made a false statement on the 4473, he broke the law. Lesson: Don't buy guns for someone else, especially in another state. In CO there is an exception in being able to gift a firearm to an immediate family member.


TEA

III

[merl]

Living in Colorado prevents you from breaking this law.

No it does not, the second transfer was also through a FFL. The USSC just said it does not matter what actually happens to the gun if the initial purchase is done with the intent of not keeping it.

[Sawin]

I wonder what required time I have to wait after purchasing a firearm before I can legally sell or give it away without breaking this law?

This was my thought as well... but not so much in CO anymore, now that we cannot transfer privately to anyone, including family.

Let's just say hypothetically that someone bought a gun on a whim because it was good deal or had money burning a hole in their pocket. After shooting it once, they decided they didn't like it after all, so wanted to sell it... If they lived in another state besides CO where private party sales are still lawful, they would then be subject to this kind of ruling... Where is the logic and liberty in this? Just another step on the path so to speak. :(

[Sawin]

No it does not, the second transfer was also through a FFL. The USSC just said it does not matter what actually happens to the gun if the initial purchase is done with the intent of not keeping it.

Ah, good point Merl, thanks.

[SuperiorDG]

No it does not, the second transfer was also through a FFL. The USSC just said it does not matter what actually happens to the gun if the initial purchase is done with the intent of not keeping it.

Well if you put it that way.

[newracer]

The key point if this case was he accepted money for the firearm before he purchased it and it was documented.

[merl]

The 4473 permits gifts across the country (less any converse state laws). Read the instructions for box 11 next time you open a form. It will tell you, if the firearm is a gift for someone you have no reason to believe is an unlawful firearms possessor, you should check "yes". So the crime here is not that the gun was provided to the uncle or whoever he was, it was that the uncle sent money for the gun (making it not a gift) and was dumb enough to write "Glock 17" on the check.

[mop]

This amplifies the purpose of the 5th amendment. If he didn't talk to anyone he could have wormed out of that even in that situation.

The receipt was found when his house was searched due to other charges. He may well have talked himself into this but he was also caught in a "we have to charge him with something" when the reason for the search didn't pan out.

[speedysst]

Why do we brainstorm about ways to circumvent a law then complain when the law is tightened?

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

"Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. "

So how exactly does NICS work with tracking gun purchases and getting that to LEO to investigate crimes?
.


I know, it's not like they have some kind of national gun registry...since that would be illegal and violate the constitution. So how do they track all these guns to said owners?

More directly, I'll explain the trace procedure as it was explained to me....1-write/subpoena manufacturer for records, which show where gun was sent. 2-write/subpoena distributor for where said gun went next. 3-write/subpoena store/ffl for 4473/name of purchaser. 4-write/subpoena/contact 4473 buyer.....and if he/she sold/transferred it then on till the trail goes cold. But that's not a "bona-fide" registry since big brother can't just get the info on the spot, right?

[SuperiorDG]

I know, it's not like they have some kind of national gun registry...since that would be illegal and violate the constitution. So how do they track all these guns to said owners?

I think they mean after a gun commits a crime they then track it down to the buyer.[Sarcasm2]

[davsel]

Why do we brainstorm about ways to circumvent a law then complain when the law is tightened?

As opposed to...?
Maybe laying still and taking it?

"...shall not be infringed", my friend.

[muddywings]

I know, it's not like they have some kind of national gun registry...since that would be illegal and violate the constitution. So how do they track all these guns to said owners?

More directly, I'll explain the trace procedure as it was explained to me....1-write/subpoena manufacturer for records, which show where gun was sent. 2-write/subpoena distributor for where said gun went next. 3-write/subpoena store/ffl for 4473/name of purchaser. 4-write/subpoena/contact 4473 buyer.....and if he/she sold/transferred it then on till the trail goes cold. But that's not a "bona-fide" registry since big brother can't just get the info on the spot, right?

Thanks, that's what my understanding was too but I read a bit much into the original statement. Still seems like a dubious thing to state in a SC decision statement even though the original buyer still had to transfer to his uncle.
Just a whole bunch of herpa-derpa all around.
I didn't know about this case but sounds like a serious case of the dumb-asses on part of the buyer who should have known better in the first place

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

Still seems like a dubious thing to state in a SC decision statement even though the original buyer still had to transfer to his uncle.
Just a whole bunch of herpa-derpa all around.

Yeah, I'm puzzled how transferring said pistol through an ffl classified as a straw purchase myself....I think it was a stretch, but the "fear" the ruling helps inspire in the citizens who choose to own guns "legally" furthers an agenda.

[Great-Kazoo]

Yeah, I'm puzzled how transferring said pistol through an ffl classified as a straw purchase myself....I think it was a stretch, but the "fear" the ruling helps inspire in the citizens who choose to own guns "legally" furthers an agenda.

He purchased it for his uncle, with money from his uncle. He knew ahead of time the purchase was not for him, but his uncle.

The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount.

[Aloha_Shooter]

It just proves that Anthony, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan have no business on the court. Bad as McCain or W were in their own ways, neither of them would have appointed Kagan, Sotomayor, or Ginsberg. Those who say there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats need to consider this case and the ruling.

[KestrelBike]

It just proves that Anthony, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan have no business on the court. Bad as McCain or W were in their own ways, neither of them would have appointed Kagan, Sotomayor, or Ginsberg. Those who say there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats need to consider this case and the ruling.

Signed. Kagan's comments had my blood boiling and I had to throw away the reply I wrote. Both her and Sotomayor throw their gender and ethnicity around like weapons, I can't stand it.

[muddywings]

Fundamentally there was no intent to straw purchase as the first buyer knew he would have to transfer via FFL. Someone above stated that the cops had to get him for something after the original charge didn't stick and that's what I'm thinking.
I know plenty of people who get friends and family an employee discount at a store they work at. Unfortunately you have to treat guns different in the eyes of USSC.

[merl]

Or they looked at is as a valid law was being broken. Does not mean they thought it was a good law, just a valid law.

[OneGuy67]

I know, it's not like they have some kind of national gun registry...since that would be illegal and violate the constitution. So how do they track all these guns to said owners?

More directly, I'll explain the trace procedure as it was explained to me....1-write/subpoena manufacturer for records, which show where gun was sent. 2-write/subpoena distributor for where said gun went next. 3-write/subpoena store/ffl for 4473/name of purchaser. 4-write/subpoena/contact 4473 buyer.....and if he/she sold/transferred it then on till the trail goes cold. But that's not a "bona-fide" registry since big brother can't just get the info on the spot, right?

You are pretty much correct. We LEO's will contact the ATF and they will do the legwork described above. Once we have the information on the original buyer, it is up to us to do the legwork and go from buyer to buyer, if that is possible.

[DireWolf]

Or they looked at is as a valid law was being broken. Does not mean they thought it was a good law, just a valid law.
seems to me it would not be valid, at least based on the following (can't remember/find the original case this opinion came out of).....


 "The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it"



Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Eric P]

Its time to just get rid of background checks altogether. Any citizen of the US should be able to obtain any type of firearm with only proof of citizenship.

[asmo]

More directly, I'll explain the trace procedure as it was explained to me....1-write/subpoena manufacturer for records, which show where gun was sent. 2-write/subpoena distributor for where said gun went next. 3-write/subpoena store/ffl for 4473/name of purchaser. 4-write/subpoena/contact 4473 buyer.....and if he/she sold/transferred it then on till the trail goes cold.

Funny.. Its kinda like that but without all the subpoenas and oversight. But I won't belabor it since I have posted about it in the past.

More to the point, the ruling today basically allows the ATF to write laws.

[Great-Kazoo]

Funny.. Its kinda like that but without all the subpoenas and oversight. But I won't belabor it since I have posted about it in the past.

More to the point, the ruling today basically allows the ATF to write laws.

They did it with rifle caliber pistols etc. Nothing new. I know a few times imports were held up @ customs curing the mid 90's just because. They insisted on a visual exam of EVERY rifle and parts kit entering the country. Most orders were held up 6-8 months.

[asmo]

They did it with rifle caliber pistols etc. Nothing new. I know a few times imports were held up @ customs curing the mid 90's just because. They insisted on a visual exam of EVERY rifle and parts kit entering the country. Most orders were held up 6-8 months.

But before they never had a real SCOTUS ruling to stand on.. After today all bets are off. The BATFE can make up any rule they want, regarding possession and sale, and enforce it any way they want -- all with the full backing of the SCOTUS.

I await the coming 'interpretation' letters...

[kidicarus13]

No it does not, the second transfer was also through a FFL. The USSC just said it does not matter what actually happens to the gun if the initial purchase is done with the intent of not keeping it.

Very hard to prove intent.


This was my thought as well... but not so much in CO anymore, now that we cannot transfer privately to anyone, including family.


Really?


The key point if this case was he accepted money for the firearm before he purchased it and it was documented.
Already stated.

[Rucker61]

This was my thought as well... but not so much in CO anymore, now that we cannot transfer privately to anyone, including family.



You can't legally sell to immediate family without a BGC, but you can legally bona fide gift a firearm or loan for any time period a firearm to immediate family. Stepchildren and same-sex partners do not count as immediate family.

[KevDen2005]

I wonder what required time I have to wait after purchasing a firearm before I can legally sell or give it away without breaking this law?

Just always intend on keeping it. You could change your mind the next day, or run into a financial issue that you must sell the gun.

[merl]

But before they never had a real SCOTUS ruling to stand on.. After today all bets are off. The BATFE can make up any rule they want, regarding possession and sale, and enforce it any way they want -- all with the full backing of the SCOTUS.

I await the coming 'interpretation' letters...
Probably the worst part in all this is there is no chance of getting the actual laws cleaned up. The bad laws will stay. If we didn't have laws that gave the AG wide discretion in making rules/code this would all be clearer but as seen with the expiration of the invisible gun BS, neither side wants to make things any looser.

[Rucker61]

Two interesting precedent cases: US vs Polk, where the Fifth Circuit held that “if the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability under a ‘straw purchase’ theory does not attach". Additionally, in U.S. v. Ortiz, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that “straw purchases of firearms occur when an unlawful purchaser...uses a lawful ‘straw man’ purchaser...to obtain a firearm .”

[merl]

What does precedent say about knowingly lying on an official federal form with this notice just above the signature box?

I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony...

[Rucker61]

What does precedent say about knowingly lying on an official federal form with this notice just above the signature box?

If legal precedent says that buying for a legal buyer is not a straw purchase, then the original buyer is not a straw purchaser. What else can they be but the buyer?

[merl]

Straw purchase does not matter here. He is shafted because he signed that form when he was not the buyer. The example given in the instructions even matches the situation.
He could have kept the gun and still gotten nailed because when he signed the form he lied on that checkbox. Yeah, we're putting people away for that.

[OneGuy67]

Two interesting precedent cases: US vs Polk, where the Fifth Circuit held that “if the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability under a ‘straw purchase’ theory does not attach". Additionally, in U.S. v. Ortiz, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that “straw purchases of firearms occur when an unlawful purchaser...uses a lawful ‘straw man’ purchaser...to obtain a firearm .”

....and the SCOTUS trumps circuit court decisions.

[Rucker61]

....and the SCOTUS trumps circuit court decisions.

Understood, but i find it interesting that two previous court decisions were the polar opposite of this one, using the same laws as a basis.

[OneGuy67]

Again, two lower court rulings. The only time they are used as case law is if the SCOTUS doesn't hear the appeal and then only in that area. If we here in Colorado had to adhere to the 9th circuit court decisions, we would be in a world of hurt. California is the land of fruits and nuts as are their asinine court decisions.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[spongejosh]

If they're going after this checkbox when are they going to start going after all the potheads that lie on the 4473?

[merl]

If they're going after this checkbox when are they going to start going after all the potheads that lie on the 4473?

What makes you think there is not trouble when police encounter someone with both a firearm and a MMJ card (or simple possession here).

[lowbeyond]

The lesson... Hmm I wonder what that is....