Posted on 06/16/2014 12:10:19 PM PDT by Bratch
“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.”
The guy lied on the ATF Form 4473 by declaring himself as the actual buyer when he was not. Gifts are still legal.
The decision simply reiterates that it is illegal to lie on the forms which are required by law to be completed in order to purchase a firearm. Here, the defendant lied about a material issue, i.e., whether he was buying the firearm for himself or another person. Yep, lying on governmental forms signed under penalty of perjury is still a crime. That’s all the decision says, panicky low info readers aside.
See. I knew I could count on you.
So while California bars such an action, it is not federally barred?
Still, I disgreee with it.
I can buy anything for anyone except this. Transfer ownership of title or even give them a hangover but, I cannot just “gift” a gun?
Just this one thing in life I am barred from transferring?
Not even remotely accurate. Ignore this yellow journalism. Here's a better article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3168374/posts
This is FR.
No one sent me a memo about reading articles.
Maybe it got lost with Lois Lerners emails?
I Attempting to get a discount, when you cannot personally
do so, might be considered fraud, so why is our
pernicious supreme court getting involved?
You can still buy firearms as gifts. That is not illegal.
Getting back to this:
I really don’t see the advantage of buying something with a police discount.
The original purchaser will pay for his DROS and when they transfer ownership.
That’s $50-$75 bucks each time, here in California.
Doesn’t make sense but, if that’s how they wanna purchase...
Legislating from the Supreme Court again? Screw you all! No sane jury
will see it your way SC! So go screw yourselves and your nanny dictates.
Don’t blame the readers. The misunderstandings caused by this article are the fault of the author. He wrote an attention-grabbing headline to get hits.
What is needed here is a Congressional Bill amending the orginal law to reflect the intent best suited for Second Amendment Advocates.
Clearly, the idea of people buying weapons in one jurisdiction to be sold in another jurisdiction to individuals of questionable character is what the law’s intent was.
Equally clearly, the anti-gun Bolsheviks on the Court - Ginsburg, Kagan, Soto-Mayor in particular are interested in, is using whatever decisions and statutes as exist currently to destroy Second Amendment Rights.
Maybe there needs to be a definition of wht constitutes a “straw purchase” added to the original statute to clarify that one individual buying a firearm who transfer that firearm after a purchase to another individual who is legally able to own firearm, is not engaging in the practise of a “straw purchase”.
But it would have to be so clearly crafted that menaces with a sinister alternative motive like Ginsburg, Kagan and Soto-Mayor can’t misconstrue it.
I am not sure I agree with Kagan’s premise that the tracking of firearm ownership by the government - which would consitute a de facto gun registration bank - was the original intent of the statute.
I believe this overreach by the Court.
See my post about correcting this idiotic interpretation of the law.
Agreed.
Because in the attempt at fraud, he falsely filled out the 4473. The discount is not the issue. The false federal gun form is the issue.
His addled gin soaked brain notwithstanding, Teddy Kennedy knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he went after Robert Bork.
And boy, has it paid dividends.
Doesn’t make sense in CA, but those same fees don’t exist everywhere.
Putting true numbskulls to one side ...
I agree with your premise, however the Supreme Court with it's ruling today basically legitimizes NICS by saying this individual violated Form 4473 Question 11 as defined by notices, instructions and definitions. Part of notices, instructions and definitions explains who you can't sell or give a weapon to. That is now the law according to the constitutional power of the Supreme Court. This can be changed by a later ruling or Amendment.
It can be changed by amending the original statute.
They are deciding on the applicabilty of a Federal Law, not a COnstitutional Right, although they are related.
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.