SCOTUS finally does something right

Post Reply New Topic

It wont solve everything but it's a step in the right direction

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sup ... story.html

Straw purchases are already illegal and have been for a long time. I would not expect the SCOTUS to arrive at any other ruling than what they did.

The loophole to that is this:
When made at a federally licensed firearm dealership, straw purchases can be illegal in the United States. A straw purchaser of a firearm who lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. If a firearm is purchased as a gift, the transaction is not a straw purchase, and the person buying the gift is considered the end user. Straw purchases made outside of federally regulated dealerships are legal unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser.

All former police officer Bruce Abramski had to do was state that he had bought the Glock 19 in question as a gift for his uncle and have no evidence to the contrary to be discovered. It is unlikely that this loophole will be closed in the foreseeable future since it would incriminate too many people with actual noble intentions.

As an note; the caption below the image of the three handguns says they are Glocks. Only the one on the bottom is s Glock, the other two above it are P-220 series SIG Sauer handguns.

the problem was that he wasn't buying it as a gift, he purchased it using his uncle's check, so not only did he lie on the form but it was obvious that he lied on the form.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't straw purchases already illegal? Also, I don't see how this will stop gun smuggling especially when you can double your money by selling to some Mexicans. 50% increase, hot damn that's what I call a profit. Even Eric Holder would drool over that.

Yes, but the loophole (probably not the right term since I seriously doubt that it was intended to be a loophole in the legal sense) would have allowed him to claim that it was being bought as a gift if there was no evidence to the contrary. The $400 check being the damning evidence in this case.

All this talk of Mexico must be bringing up hazy flashbacks of the late 70s.

So, Eric Holder is going to prison now right?

They must have used this to come up with the caption:

/\ You'd think at least one of them would have a barrel shroud (a.k.a. a shoulder thing that goes up).......

I don't understand the facts of the case. Why did the guy buy a gun for his uncle in the first place, when the uncle could have bought it himself?

The only scenario that makes sense to me is the VA guy was buying a used gun in a particular condition or rarity that his uncle couldn't get. But then, all the guy had to do was buy the gun for himself, and then sell it to his uncle and do the transfer through an FFL in PA. The loophole isn't even really the "gift" clause.

The dumb thing is that really it's still 100% simple for you to get someone to walk into a gun shop, buy a gun in their name, and give it to you. There is no legal requirement that you own a gun for X months before you turn around and sell it to someone else.

Just don't be dumb enough to admit to doing it on purpose.

Guy was a cop, bought the gun for his uncle using his police discount, or something to that effect. Fairly petty application of the law IMHO, but not really a big deal as far as the ruling goes.

The intent of making straw purchases illegal is to prevent persons legally permitted to purchase/possess firearms from purchasing one on behalf of persons who are not permitted by law to purchase/possess them. It's like someone under the legal drinking age getting someone who's 21 to buy a six pack for them.
In this particular case it's really more a matter of perjury on the ATF form 4473 at best than procuring a firearm for someone not permitted by law to purchase/possess one. There was nothing mentioned in the article about the uncle being barred by law from purchasing/possessing a firearm.
The whole thing is a weak example of straw purchasing but I wouldn't expect any other ruling from the SC than what they did.

$400 for a glock ain't much of a discount.

Digging through the case, it basically boils down to one thing: because he accepted the check from his uncle *before* he bought the gun himself, it's a straw purchase. If he had bought the gun upfront, and *then* turned around and sold it to his uncle, then it's two separate transactions and is totally legal (assuming the transfer goes through an FFL).

It's kind of petty, given that as I understand it an FFL was involved in the transfer from nephew to uncle anyway, but I still think I agree with the ruling.

Moral of the story is there's a right way to do things, and a wrong way to do things. With gun laws in particular, it's ridiculously easy to inadvertently do something the wrong way. So do your research

More laws that are literally impossible to enforce. Great. This has no impact on anything at all what so ever lol.

I am not in favor of laws that dont have a practical ability to actually change or regulate anything.