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-...--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.

[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.