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 ...
/johnny
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.
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.
/johnny
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...
the breakdown:
#############
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.
oops
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).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.