Skip to comments.Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' gun law
Posted on 06/16/2014 9:51:05 AM PDT by aimhigh
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
I will not comply.
I thought you already had to declare that you were not buying a firearm for someone else on the form you fill out at the gun store.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Guess they forgot about “shall not be infringed”.
Which way did Roberts rule?
So I interpret this as no more giving guns as a gift.
Section 6. The Militia and the standing army of 1,000. So as to insure and guarantee the rights guaranteed in this Constitution, every natural born male in the Republic of Maine, upon reaching the age of 18 years from conception through age 67 years from conception, has, as a member of the Militia, the obligation to keep and bear arms for the common defense, for his and his families protection, to defend against this government or any government in the future from becoming oppressive, tyrannical, or in any other way obnoxious to freedom, and to secure the rights written in this Constitution. This obligation shall never be questioned. No law shall be passed that restricts this obligation, except for time in a local jail, county jail or Maine Republic prison. No law shall be passed, test given, or fee assessed to any citizen of the Republic of Maine, age 18 from the age of conception, both male and female, that would restrict in any way that citizens right to be armed either concealed or open. Males who are found to be or confess to being homosexuals are refused entry and from serving in either the Militia or the standing army. Males over the age of 67 may be voluntary members of the Militia with the full rights of Militia members. Natural born males between the age of 16 years from conception to 18 years from conception may volunteer for Militia service with the written permission of parents or guardians. The standing army of 1,000 shall be drawn from the Militia by the commander of the Militia and is under the command of the commander of the Militia who is appointed by and reports directly to the President.
WTF - I just bought my son his first gun to give him on his birthday, I committed a felony over a stupid Mossberg 500 youth model???????
He ruled that it was a tax.
And they knew this how?
Either they are mind readers, or the fellow was... um... unwise, in stating so.
So firearms for Christmas is out?
Majority: Kagan, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor
There are exceptions for that condition contained in the instructions that accompany the Form 4473. Given that, I’m guessing there is an inter-state aspect to this that doesn’t fall under a ‘relative/gift’ situation.
Regardless, the situation probably arose because of the ‘transfer’ action. I’m guessing that’s more than just selling or giving. It depends on what the laws were.
So! You cannot purchase a firearm as a gift.
Former LEO, Bruce James Abramski, Jr. lied on the 4473 form when asked if he was purchasing the gun for himself.
That's what the form says; the question before the Court was whether you violate the law by lying on that form if you are buying the gun for someone who could have legally bought it himself.
Does this mean we can no longer ‘gift’ a firearm to someone who is legally permitted to own a firearm without possibly being prosecuted?
Go on the web and down load the Form 4473 and INSTRUCTIONS. There are exceptions given for relative gifts. Check it out.
yeah, I thought so too. Been awhile since I bought mine but I seem to remember that.
He voted with the 4. Kennedy joined the majority.
Right. The Long March to total gun control continues.
One more avenue of exercising your Natural Right to Self-Defense closed off by our masters in government.
Justice Kagan essentially says that gun registration is Constitutional and 4 other justices agreed with her. Not good.
How do you prove INTENT? And where is the constitutional authority? I will not comply.
What got him in trouble is his uncle had asked him to buy the gun for him and then wrote him a check for $400 with “Glock 19 handgun” written in the memo line.
I'll be waiting for government clarification before I give any firearms away. Not.
And so the 2008 and 2012 election consequences continue.
How about the legality of a straw government?
According to many on this forum, not so - no difference at all between Obama and the two Republican candidates
“So I interpret this as no more giving guns as a gift.”
“So firearms for Christmas is out?”
Looks like it.
My question is what if I jump through all the legal hoops (4473, etc.) and buy a gun, then two weeks later want to upgrade and need to sell it?
Does that make me a ‘straw purchaser’?
From the article: "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."
My right came from God, and no court can take it away. The most they can do is kill me.
That part is vague in its enforcement...It is difficult to know where the guns go after the walk out of the store...
I would not go so far as to advocate a lie...
I too would like to see the breakdown of where they fell on this opinion...And, who swung it against us...
Could have some weight if “Fast and Furious” felons ever get prosecuted.
Stoopid is, as stooped does...
I know. There were other battles; that have now been lost.
I was not happy either, but the choices were hard.
The SC is all but buried in liberals, now.
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 correct way to do this is for the gun to be a gift and the $400 to be in cash...
...or if a check must be used, the memo line should read: “My share of dinner & drinks - it was good to see you all” (or something similar).
No, you didn’t...
The felony would be that your son would not learn how to use it...;-)
Another great ruling by that so called right wing majority the libs are always whining about. Speaking of straw men.
When will people realize that they will never get their grievances redressed in the US court system. The federal courts are here to assist and benefit the government, not the citizens.
My suggestion is that if you need to sell a weapon, be sure to do it with the involvement of an FFL dealer so all paperwork is legal and proper.
I had to sell of or or pawn my weapons simply to survive at one point. Hated to do it; still regret it. But that’s the way it was. And to an FFL dealer so it was all legit.
Anyone who purchased them had to go through the legal checks.
I can understand the false statement and background check avoidance aspects but “trace firearms”??? Is Kagan documenting judicial notice that we have a defacto gun registry even though that’s prohibited by law (and the Constitution)?
argh - I hate typos
Wonder how tough it is to remove a SC Justice from the bench? Is it an impeachment process, probably, or are charges levied by the people for Malfeasance in Office, or rulings that are easily seen to be totally against the Constitution, or traitorous activities possible? Are civil suits possible? I know that in general the Feds are immune in the performance of their duties but what about not performing their duties, think protection of borders? Or as I hear more and more would the people have no standing? In other words, who will judge the judges?
Yeah, I'd really like to know how the evidence was collected in this case.
This decision does NOT mean that firearm gifts are now illegal.
You are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm as a gift. You are not the actual buyer if you purchase a firearm at the behest of someone else.
I thought the background checks were destroyed after a certain amount of time. /sarc intended
This ruling has nothing to do with gifts. It has to do with buying a gun for someone who has or is giving you money to do so.