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 whats 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 wasnt 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 Obamas 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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
Do they get secret service protection?
posted on 06/25/2014 7:38:40 PM PDT
(King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
Clear and concise as Lott always is.
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.)
Don't believe the members of the Supreme Court ever read the Constitution by some of their judgments on guns.
To: Blue Collar Christian
Yep. John’s always a good read IMO.
posted on 06/25/2014 7:53:51 PM PDT
(Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
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.
posted on 06/25/2014 7:54:41 PM PDT
(Please excuse the potholes in this tagline. Social programs have to take priority in our funding.)
After they don't freeze to death by proving they can handle two sticks and tinder.
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.
posted on 06/25/2014 8:04:52 PM PDT
by 48th SPS
(Not Republican. Not a Democrat. I am an American)
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!!!
posted on 06/25/2014 8:16:52 PM PDT
(Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
posted on 06/25/2014 8:21:34 PM PDT
(The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
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?
posted on 06/25/2014 8:34:32 PM PDT
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 allthey just didn’t contract it.
posted on 06/25/2014 8:51:55 PM PDT
As I understand it, (and Im not a lawyer) one can gift or sell a gun to anyone within ones state (assuming the state law allows it). What you cant do is buy a gun for someone else and have them pay you for it. And you cant 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 purchasethe 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 allthey just didnt 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.
posted on 06/25/2014 8:54:19 PM PDT
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.
posted on 06/25/2014 9:01:15 PM PDT
( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
“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.
posted on 06/25/2014 9:06:03 PM PDT
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
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.
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.
I could not have stated it better! This is not a case for everyone to get worked up over.
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 .
To: richardb72; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
posted on 06/25/2014 9:37:13 PM PDT
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson