FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 ...
Do they get secret service protection?
Clear and concise as Lott always is.
Yep. John’s always a good read IMO.
Dumb asses shouldn't be allowed to rule on ANY kind of technology that involves more than rubbing sticks together to make fire.
/johnny
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 .
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.