Aa
Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law
It's no secret here that I am pro guns.
That said, I agree with this common sense decision.
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html
That said, I agree with this common sense decision.
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html
We hit yard sales almost every week around here. 1 time in 26 years of being here did I see guns at a yard sale. In that event, it was a pissed off wife selling all of her husbands stuff at a very cut rate, since he was out of town.
Every yard sale I have ever been too has clothes. Too many clothes in fact. Everyone either donates the left overs or throws them away.
Every yard sale I have ever been too has clothes. Too many clothes in fact. Everyone either donates the left overs or throws them away.
I hate to say this but when you see guns at yard sales, you know guns are too accessible to the public.
I have a few guns that were gifted to me. Only have of those gifts were wrapped.
The thing with a gift card. You give me a gift card to my local gun shop for my birthday. After the celebration at my favorite Mexican Restaurant, I gather up all of my gifts and walk to the car. As I'm loading everything into the car, I drop the gift card.... someone picks it up and goes to pick out a gun? You're okay with that? Gift cards get lost all of the time...
Yard sales... we had a lady sell about 15 shotguns at a yard sale around here a few years back. Cheezed off at her husband and sold his collection of Model 12s plus a few others.... Guns were worth thousands, she sold them for $100 a piece.
The thing with a gift card. You give me a gift card to my local gun shop for my birthday. After the celebration at my favorite Mexican Restaurant, I gather up all of my gifts and walk to the car. As I'm loading everything into the car, I drop the gift card.... someone picks it up and goes to pick out a gun? You're okay with that? Gift cards get lost all of the time...
Yard sales... we had a lady sell about 15 shotguns at a yard sale around here a few years back. Cheezed off at her husband and sold his collection of Model 12s plus a few others.... Guns were worth thousands, she sold them for $100 a piece.
Well, I was kind of joking around. It's not in my world that people buy a gun, wrap it up and give it as a gift.
I think if one still gets their gun, it's still really nice to give a gift card to a favorite gun shop or cash.
I agree special, that would be my way as well...
My da says she sees them all the time at yard sales . Guns of all kinds. Now that kind of blows my mind abit I must say.. She lives up around Dayton Ohio.
I think if one still gets their gun, it's still really nice to give a gift card to a favorite gun shop or cash.
I agree special, that would be my way as well...
My da says she sees them all the time at yard sales . Guns of all kinds. Now that kind of blows my mind abit I must say.. She lives up around Dayton Ohio.
Well, I was kind of joking around. It's not in my world that people buy a gun, wrap it up and give it as a gift.
I think if one still gets their gun, it's still really nice to give a gift card to a favorite gun shop or cash.
I guess the idea of it having to be a gift seemed a funky argument for making tracking of guns easier.
I think if one still gets their gun, it's still really nice to give a gift card to a favorite gun shop or cash.
I guess the idea of it having to be a gift seemed a funky argument for making tracking of guns easier.
Thanks Mike... Im still not completely on board with the idea. Ulterior motives.....
specialmom, what classifies a gun as an "assault rifle" again? I forget what the anti gun people call an assault rifle?
specialmom, what classifies a gun as an "assault rifle" again? I forget what the anti gun people call an assault rifle?
Brice, I'll give my gun toting loved ones a lovely card with some cash in it so it's legit. Rather than going out and purchasing it myself and wrapping up that assault rifle and putting it under the Christmas tree.
Most states have procedures for transferring guns so gifts of firearms would still be possible. Think of it like motor vehicles. You can get your son a car but you do have to register it in his name and he must comply with the state regulations.
So this is the precursor to ending buying guns as gifts? Didn't know that was even a problem.
What the two above did seems fishy more morally/ethically than any legal matter, but now it is a legal matter....
What the two above did seems fishy more morally/ethically than any legal matter, but now it is a legal matter....
I think this is a good decision. It makes sense for tracking purposes. I think it is a step in the right direction.
I see nothing wrong with this decision but I need to do more investigation to see if this will impact any type of business and the purpose for this decision.
From what I understand they want the "actual buyer" to be the one filling out the paper work. I can see that, up to the point of keeping track of that gun.
What if I wanted to buy my husband a gun for Christmas and have it be a surprise? Could I not do that? We're both legally allowed to purchase and possess fire arms...
In the case above the man purchasing the gun had already been paid for it, so he knew he wasn't the actual owner; in that sense, he falsified the paperwork.
I don't see how the law will keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them, if the law only addresses people who are eligible to buy them. It's already illegal to buy fire arms and give them to people who aren't supposed to have them.
What if I wanted to buy my husband a gun for Christmas and have it be a surprise? Could I not do that? We're both legally allowed to purchase and possess fire arms...
In the case above the man purchasing the gun had already been paid for it, so he knew he wasn't the actual owner; in that sense, he falsified the paperwork.
I don't see how the law will keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them, if the law only addresses people who are eligible to buy them. It's already illegal to buy fire arms and give them to people who aren't supposed to have them.
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."
I'm missing something. If I understand this right, it is illegal for a person who is legally allowed to purchase and possess fire arms for another person who is legally allowed to own and purchase firearms?
How does that help anything?
How does that help anything?
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
