Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the Supreme Court still doesn't understand about guns
Fox News ^ | June 25, 2014 | John Lott

Posted on 06/25/2014 7:37:06 PM PDT by richardb72

In what’s being hailed by many as a victory for gun-control advocates, the recent Supreme Court decision on “straw” purchases of guns has completely muddled the whole issue of background checks and “straw” purchases for potential gun owners.

The court ruled 5-4 that, as The Hill.com put it, “one legal gun owner may not acquire a firearm on behalf of another — a practice known as "straw" purchasing.

The case heard by the high court involved a Virginia police officer, Bruce Abramski, who bought a gun, a Glock 19 handgun, for his uncle. The police officer, who could get a discount on guns, bought the gun in Virginia. He then transferred it to his uncle, who lived in Pennsylvania, through a second licensed dealer in the state.

The Obama administration successfully prosecuted Abramski for two felonies. The Justice Department said that the same federal background check form where Abramski indicated that he wasn’t a straw purchaser involved perjury as well as for providing false information to the gun dealer who sold the gun.

The five Justices who supported Obama’s prosecution, claimed: “That information helps to fight serious crime. When police officers retrieve a gun at a crime scene, they can trace it to the buyer and consider him as a suspect.”

But there are two big problems with their claim. . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; johnlott; scotus

1 posted on 06/25/2014 7:37:06 PM PDT by richardb72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Do they get secret service protection?


2 posted on 06/25/2014 7:38:40 PM PDT by sickoflibs (King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Clear and concise as Lott always is.


3 posted on 06/25/2014 7:42:40 PM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (There's only one reason for authorities to take the arms of good people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72
Don't believe the members of the Supreme Court ever read the Constitution by some of their judgments on guns.
4 posted on 06/25/2014 7:49:52 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian

Yep. John’s always a good read IMO.


5 posted on 06/25/2014 7:53:51 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: richardb72
I remember a Supreme Court ruling that said that if you were using a cordless phone, you couldn't claim you were illegally wire tapped, since you were "broadcasting". I was driving by a microwave transmission tower owned by one of the major phone companies when I heard it.

Dumb asses shouldn't be allowed to rule on ANY kind of technology that involves more than rubbing sticks together to make fire.

6 posted on 06/25/2014 7:54:41 PM PDT by Hardastarboard (Please excuse the potholes in this tagline. Social programs have to take priority in our funding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard
After they don't freeze to death by proving they can handle two sticks and tinder.

/johnny

7 posted on 06/25/2014 8:04:28 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Actually the Supreme Court understands very little about anything except abstract law.
These poeple have rarely been outside of their structured little world in 15 20 25 years or more. They have no concept of real everyday life for real everyday American citizens.


8 posted on 06/25/2014 8:04:52 PM PDT by 48th SPS (Not Republican. Not a Democrat. I am an American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72
WTF?!?! I had heard about this, and grumbled about it, though I had never heard the fact that it was then transferred through a dealer, to another person! This would, for all intents and purposes, outlaw purchasing a gun as a gift for another!

Nobody in their right mind should be able to say that this is a staw purchase!

This ruling would effectively outlaw a father purchasing a .22 rifle or first shotgun for a child!

This is a complete and total outrage!!!

Mark

9 posted on 06/25/2014 8:16:52 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Justices Sit on Highest Court, but Still Live Without Top Security
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/supreme-court-justices-remain-security-exceptions.html?_r=0


10 posted on 06/25/2014 8:21:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

Hard to believe that in this country you cannot purchase a legal commodity (i.e., gun) and then dispose of it any way you want. I’m sure many people have purchased guns as gifts for sons or fathers or daughters or wives. How is this different than purchasing them a hammer or boots, both of which have killed more people than assault rifles?


11 posted on 06/25/2014 8:34:32 PM PDT by Hootowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hootowl

As I understand it, (and I’m not a lawyer) one can gift or sell a gun to anyone within one’s state (assuming the state law allows it). What you can’t do is buy a gun for someone else and have them pay you for it. And you can’t lie on the form that states that you are the actual purchaser of the gun. This guy went into the gun store with the idea of buying the gun for someone else with their money. That has always been considered a “straw purchase”—the fact that the person he was buying for was legally able to buy the same gun (in his own state) is not an exception to the straw purchase rule.

Now, whether or not the straw purchase law is a good idea or not is another matter. But, in my opinion, the Supreme Court did not expand the straw purchase law at all—they just didn’t contract it.


12 posted on 06/25/2014 8:51:55 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu
As I understand it, (and I’m not a lawyer) one can gift or sell a gun to anyone within one’s state (assuming the state law allows it). What you can’t do is buy a gun for someone else and have them pay you for it. And you can’t lie on the form that states that you are the actual purchaser of the gun. This guy went into the gun store with the idea of buying the gun for someone else with their money. That has always been considered a “straw purchase”—the fact that the person he was buying for was legally able to buy the same gun (in his own state) is not an exception to the straw purchase rule.

Now, whether or not the straw purchase law is a good idea or not is another matter. But, in my opinion, the Supreme Court did not expand the straw purchase law at all—they just didn’t contract it.


I think you got it pretty well. There are arguments on both sides of the case, but I think the majority has the better argument here.
13 posted on 06/25/2014 8:54:19 PM PDT by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: richardb72
In my world, a “straw purchase” is when someone who is not legally able to buy a gun has someone else buy it for them and the gun is then transferred/possessed by the one who is prohibited from owning a gun without any background check.

That's the intent of the law that they ignore. It's odd that they would go after someone like this when there are a log bigger fish to fry.

14 posted on 06/25/2014 9:01:15 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

“When police officers retrieve a gun at a crime scene, they can trace it to the buyer and consider him as a suspect.”

A complete fiction. This is practically nonexistent as a law enforcement technique. It’s so rare as to be practically unheard of.
And useless because it assumes that crimes are committed by people law abiding enough to purchase and register a gun. Then they go off the rails and commit crimes. Then AT the crime scene, they inexplicably drop the gun, registered to them, and run.


15 posted on 06/25/2014 9:06:03 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hootowl
I will state right off that I have a safe full of guns, a concealed carry permit and I am a strong 2nd amendment supporter. I have several guns that my father in law gave me over the years. I think the big difference here is my father in law purchased them for himself and after a while when he wanted a different gun or would not shoot it anymore he would give them to me. Which from what I am reading is still permissible.
I feel bad for this police officer, and I don't know all of the details of this case, but if he filled out the ATF form when he purchased the gun and signed the form as the gun was for himself and it wasn't, he committed perjury. In addition if he purchased the gun for someone else, which he was convicted of doing, then it would have been a straw purchase.
It sucks, but as a police officer he should have known better. And it sucks more since he probably only saved his uncle a couple of hundred dollars if that.
16 posted on 06/25/2014 9:09:10 PM PDT by martinidon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oceander

What is amazing to me is the way this has been allowed to become such a big deal.

I myself would NEVER purchase a gun for another person. I might buy a gun, take it to the range one time, decide I really don’t like it, and sell it to someone since I no longer want it.

But I would never buy a gun for another person. Trust me.


17 posted on 06/25/2014 9:11:41 PM PDT by I cannot think of a name (\w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu

I could not have stated it better! This is not a case for everyone to get worked up over.


18 posted on 06/25/2014 9:15:25 PM PDT by martinidon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name

Another great post on this issue. Not only would I never purchase a gun for someone else, even a relative, if I want to sell a gun I will only sell it to a gun dealer .


19 posted on 06/25/2014 9:20:15 PM PDT by martinidon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: richardb72; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

20 posted on 06/25/2014 9:37:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu

Exactly.


21 posted on 06/25/2014 9:41:09 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hootowl

If you look at the form 4473 there is a block (11a) you fill out stating that you are the transferee. It makes exception for gifts which are explained in the instructions. The instructions at the end of the form for block 11 a state that if you were given money for the gun before the purchase you must answer no, you are not the transferee. It also explains the conditions for a gift, which this transfer did not meet. I read in an article somewhere that the uncle wrote the guy a check two days beforehand with “for Glock handgun” written in the memo line. This guy lied on the form and ignored the instructions. I do not know how the feds got alerted to this and I think this is a BS prosecution but this LEO should have known better than to blatantly lie or let his uncle give him a check that said what it did on it.


22 posted on 06/25/2014 9:45:11 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: richardb72

How the hell did this even get to court? The guy must have figured it was OK, and just blabbed about it until some hammer toting DA saw a nail sticking up...


23 posted on 06/25/2014 11:13:56 PM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
I don't know a lot about this case, but I thought I read that one of the issues is that Congress did not make straw purchases a crime, and that it was ATF(?) who stretched the law to do so. If that is the case, then the USSC did in fact expand the law in the process of interpreting it. But I could be totally wrong about that.
24 posted on 06/26/2014 3:51:58 AM PDT by boomstick (One of the fingers on the button will be German.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu; All

“Now, whether or not the straw purchase law is a good idea or not is another matter. But, in my opinion, the Supreme Court did not expand the straw purchase law at all—they just didn’t contract it.”

The problem is the “straw purchase” part. The BATFE added that part of the law. It is not original law, it is regulatory add on. You can argue that the original law is ambiguous, but as Scalia noted, ambiguity is to be decided in favor of the defendant.


25 posted on 06/26/2014 5:18:55 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

I think the key is that the uncle sent a check for the gun a couple of days before the original purchase. That was the evidence of a “straw” purchase - to get the police discount.

FWIW.


26 posted on 06/26/2014 5:41:22 AM PDT by MortMan ("Homeland" may be a documentary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
In my world, a “straw purchase” is when someone who is not legally able to buy a gun has someone else buy it for them and the gun is then transferred/possessed by the one who is prohibited from owning a gun without any background check.

That's the intent of the law that they ignore. It's odd that they would go after someone like this when there are a log bigger fish to fry.

Exactly. There was no intent in this particular case to break the law. The only intent was to save some money on the purchase price of the firewarm. There is no dispute that both parties were legally able to purchase the firearm.  I see a lot ot comments on threads about this case saying "well the law is the law", and my answer to that is that in this case, the law is an ass and so are its supporters.

The supreme court missed an opportunity to support a  common sense application of the law.

27 posted on 06/26/2014 10:41:16 AM PDT by zeugma (It is time for us to start playing cowboys and muslims for real now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Not correct.

Where I used to live, the local cops would call gun shops with the serial number of the weapon seized or found in order to locate the original purchaser.

Not sure if it ever worked out or not, but I was present for a number of calls in different shops (I knew a few of the cops at the time, and they confirmed it is what they did).


28 posted on 06/26/2014 11:09:47 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson