Supreme Court Ruling

[getsome]

News report today says that the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that any gun purchase must be for the person filling out the form ONLY and the gun CANNOT be used as a gift or sold to another person or the original owner would be guilty of being a "straw purchaser"....

This case started back in 2009 when Bruce Abramski filled out the form saying he was the actual buyer and purchased a Glock 19 using his Police discount to get a better price for the pistol....The rub was that he bought the gun for his Uncle in another state who was completely legal to buy a gun but let his nephew Bruce buy it to get the Police price and wrote him a check for it....

From what I read the SCOTUS says that the person who filled out the form is the ONLY person that can ever own the gun and it cant be given away as a gift or sold to another owner because to do so would make the original owner gulity of making a straw purchase of a firearm.... I'm not sure if a certain amount of time has to go by before you can sell a gun to another legal buyer or if it is just going to be illegal to do it now...I hope I'm wrong here but this doesn't look good and it definitely shows the SCOTUS is leaning left and against legal gun owners....

Looks like another baby step by the Government to control private gun purchases....The 4 dissent votes came from Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

[Bawanna]

Around here when an officer purchases at his special LE pricing they sign a form that they are buying it for their own use or dept use, the wording varies, but it specifically says they are not buying it for the purpose of resale.
Now if they buy and realize they don't like it, or decide to do something different.

It's kind of a gray area.

I've always went on the assumption that the person filling out the paperwork is the actual buyer. Only recently it was pointed out to me that a gun purchased for a wife or husband etc wasn't considered a straw purchase.

This new court decision seems to make the law what I thought it was all along.

I still don't like it, don't think it will do much of anything good or bad but as with any law, you gotta see the fine print and what the leaders do with it.

[Surlyman]

From what I've read, it was only because he purchased the firearm with a specific buyer in mind. In that, if he bought and gifted the firearm, he would have been in the clear. Not that I agree with the ruling, be it he transferred the firearm to his uncle through an FFL.

Taken from article:
"In a chiding dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the fact that Mr. Abramski was transferring the weapon was not “material to the lawfulness” of the sale.
Justice Scalia detailed the federal rules governing sales, and said under ATF guidelines if Mr. Abramski had bought the gun and given it to his uncle as a gift, he would have been in the clear; if he had bought the gun to sell, but didn’t have a specific customer in mind, he would have been fine; and if he’d bought the gun to raffle to an unknown person, he also would have been clear."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/16/supreme-court-rules-stricter-scrutiny-gun-purchase/

[Longitude Zero]

Abramski screwed up pure and simple. When he purchased the firearm his sole intent was to sell it to his uncle. He did so because both he and his uncle are IMHO cheap butt turds who were trying to scam a buck or two buying at the LEO discount. If I buy a weapon at an LEO discount I must sign an agreement that it is not for the purpose of a gift or sale and that it will be used for duty. SCOTUS got this one correct under the current law. Don't like it quit complaining and have your representatives change the law!

[getsome]

Lighten up Frances....:D....Not sure if I like it or not because it's not clear to me how it will effect private gun sales and since it was the SCOTUS that decided the issue I'm not sure any local representatives would do anything about it now....I am sure this ruling will be used by the anti gun bunch to make any private sale go through a FFL dealer in the future so the purchase can be recorded....

[Bawanna]

The supreme court only interprets what they believe the law means. The law can be changed. Not gonna happen with anything that would benefit gun owners but it is possible or at least it was when we followed the constitution.

Now I'm not sure what the rules are anymore. I think it's whoever has the fattest checkbook rules.

[SlowBurn]

Lighten up Frances....:D....Not sure if I like it or not because it's not clear to me how it will affect private gun sales and since it was the SCOTUS that decided the issue I'm not sure any local representatives could do anything about it now....I am sure this ruling will be used by the anti gun bunch to make any private sale go through a FFL dealer in the future so the purchase can be recorded....

Actually the subsequent transfer in this case from nephew to uncle DID go through an FFL. That didn't help him here. The problem is nephew really was a classic straw purchaser. He admitted he bought the gun for his uncle, with his uncle's money, and signed the form on which he swore otherwise. It was a chicken sh!t case (which is essentially what the dissent said - the misrepresentations were not "material") but it violated the law. As a precedent I'm not sure it means much.

[getsome]

Like most things gun related it means it only takes one numb nuts cheap skate to mess up and screw the pooch for everybody else...

[Longitude Zero]

Actually the subsequent transfer in this case from nephew to uncle DID go through an FFL. That didn't help him here. The problem is nephew really was a classic straw purchaser. He admitted he bought the gun for his uncle, with his uncle's money, and signed the form on which he swore otherwise. It was a chicken sh!t case (which is essentially what the dissent said - the misrepresentations were not "material") but it violated the law. As a precedent I'm not sure it means much.

Precisely.

[Longitude Zero]

Like most things gun related it means it only takes one numb nuts cheap skate to mess up and screw the pooch for everybody else...

I remember in training it was drilled into each of us to "Never be the reason bad law is made!"

[tv_racin_fan]

The original intent of the straw purchase law was to prevent someone from purchasing a firearm with the intent to transfer it to someone who was not legally allowed to possess a firearm.

Apparently that has now been changed to include facilitating the trace of a firearm to the owner. Doesn't seem to matter that this particular firearm would still be traceable to the original purchaser and then to the uncle. Doesn't seem to matter that it is still legal to gift a firearm which defeats their new reasoning, nor that it is still legal for a private party to sell a firearm outside of any dealer/background check system which also defeats their reasoning.

I predict gun control advocates will use this reasoning to show why private sales and gifting need to be done away with unless the transfer goes thru the background check/registration scheme. Isn't that exactly what they wanted with their universal background check scheme?

[getsome]

I believe that you are quite correct sir and this is the first step towards universal backround checks for any gun purchase or gift....

Next will be to make ammunition sales illegal unless from a FFL and they will be recorded and possibly require some sort of permit or license...

Our firearms rights wont all go away in a big bang but in never ending tiny steps

[tv_racin_fan]

I believe that you are quite correct sir and this is the first step towards universal background checks for any gun purchase or gift....

Next will be to make ammunition sales illegal unless from a FFL and they will be recorded and possibly require some sort of permit or license...

Our firearms rights wont all go away in a big bang but in never ending tiny steps

They also wont return in one fell swoop but in tiny steps. AND they wont return at all if the people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms as spelled out in the second amendment wont stand with their breathren in other areas who choose to exercize their right in a different fashion.

United we stand.. divided we fail.

[cohoskip]

Quote: Next will be to make ammunition sales illegal unless from a FFL and they will be recorded and possibly require some sort of permit or license.

I had an FFL in the 80s and 90s. In the 80s all ammo sold had to be entered on a form and kept at the vendors address. Thankfully they did away with that requirement. I got tired of filling out the form every time I sold .22 shells...:p

[TheTman]

I purchased a revolver from Bud's, that I am letting my daughter use. I would have had her fill out the 4473 form, but the buyer has to be the one to fill out the form.
Next I suppose you won't be able to loan a gun out to a family member.

[getsome]

I hear ya man, this ruling has opend up a can of worms for the ATF...I understand the intent of the law which was to make it illegal for someone to buy a firearm for a person they knew to be a criminal or unable to purchase a gun due to a felony on their record but what say I buy a pistol at a gun show and stop by my friends house and show it to him and the guy has a fit because unbeknownst to me he had been looking for one just like that for months and offers me twice what I paid for it....If I take him up on it does this new ruling now make me a straw buyer and a criminal because when I filled out the 4473 form I put down that the gun was for me??????...

[Bawanna]

In my opinion in your scenario your fine and dandy. At the time you made the purchase it was for you and you didn't anticipate your friends dire desire who incidentally must be a hell of a good friend for you to give up your newly acquired acquisition.

It's still perfectly legal to transfer firearms between private parties of qualified buyers without transfer or FFL involvement.

They should have just charged the poor misguided chap that caused all this with fraud. It really changes nothing.

All it does really is create verbiage that the antis can try to twist and turn around for their own misguided plans. Exactly what they've been doing to the constitution since time immemorial.

[Longitude Zero]

They should have just charged the poor misguided chap that caused all this with fraud. It really changes nothing.

All it does really is create verbiage that the antis can try to twist and turn around for their own misguided plans. Exactly what they've been doing to the constitution since time immemorial.

Charitiable. I consider both of them asshats at the best.

[ltxi]

I remember in training it was drilled into each of us to "Never be the reason bad law is made!"

I like that...

[muggsy]

Hey, if Obama doesn't have to follow the law neither do I. Up yours, SCOTUS. :)

[muggsy]

News report today says that the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that any gun purchase must be for the person filling out the form ONLY and the gun CANNOT be used as a gift or sold to another person or the original owner would be guilty of being a "straw purchaser"....

This case started back in 2009 when Bruce Abramski filled out the form saying he was the actual buyer and purchased a Glock 19 using his Police discount to get a better price for the pistol....The rub was that he bought the gun for his Uncle in another state who was completely legal to buy a gun but let his nephew Bruce buy it to get the Police price and wrote him a check for it....

From what I read the SCOTUS says that the person who filled out the form is the ONLY person that can ever own the gun and it cant be given away as a gift or sold to another owner because to do so would make the original owner gulity of making a straw purchase of a firearm.... I'm not sure if a certain amount of time has to go by before you can sell a gun to another legal buyer or if it is just going to be illegal to do it now...I hope I'm wrong here but this doesn't look good and it definitely shows the SCOTUS is leaning left and against legal gun owners....

Looks like another baby step by the Government to control private gun purchases....The 4 dissent votes came from Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

Could you post a link to that verdict? I'd be interested in reading it.

[Photoman]

I believe that you are quite correct sir and this is the first step towards universal backround checks for any gun purchase or gift....

Next will be to make ammunition sales illegal unless from a FFL and they will be recorded and possibly require some sort of permit or license...

Our firearms rights wont all go away in a big bang but in never ending tiny steps


Those crafty devils know they can't defeat the Second Amendment so they are going about it another way. More to come I'm sure...

[Photoman]

I purchased a revolver from Bud's, that I am letting my daughter use. I would have had her fill out the 4473 form, but the buyer has to be the one to fill out the form.
Next I suppose you won't be able to loan a gun out to a family member.



They would love to be able to claim that a transfer. Any time the gun goes out of your possession, that would be a transfer requiring a 4473 through a FFL. Anything to oppress the gun owner.

[bob98366]

Could you post a link to that verdict? I'd be interested in reading it.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf)

[tv_racin_fan]

They would love to be able to claim that a transfer. Any time the gun goes out of your possession, that would be a transfer requiring a 4473 through a FFL. Anything to oppress the gun owner.

The uncle was an idiot for putting gun in the for portion of the check.

It appears that record keeping is indeed a portion of the US Code "also imposes record-keeping requirements to assist law enforcement authorities in investigating serious crimes through the tracing of guns to their buyers. §922(b)(5), 923(g)."

They can want whatever they like as far as I am concerned. I learned how to sharpen a stick long ago.

[muggsy]

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf)

Thanks Bob, that is appreciated.

[TheTman]

So, are we no longer allowed to buy a firearm and give it to someone as a gift? With my daughters pistol, I just kept it in my name, and told her if ever asked about it by police to tell them I had loaned it to her.

[Surlyman]

So, are we no longer allowed to buy a firearm and give it to someone as a gift? With my daughters pistol, I just kept it in my name, and told her if ever asked about it by police to tell them I had loaned it to her.

No, gifting is still okay. The only reason this was not okay is because he made a "straw purchase" this is not a new no-no, also frowned upon with new car sales amongst other things.



Taken from article:
"In a chiding dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the fact that Mr. Abramski was transferring the weapon was not “material to the lawfulness” of the sale.
Justice Scalia detailed the federal rules governing sales, and said under ATF guidelines if Mr. Abramski had bought the gun and given it to his uncle as a gift, he would have been in the clear; if he had bought the gun to sell, but didn’t have a specific customer in mind, he would have been fine; and if he’d bought the gun to raffle to an unknown person, he also would have been clear."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/16/supreme-court-rules-stricter-scrutiny-gun-purchase/

[Longitude Zero]

It was obvious from the beginning of this case, while in the investigative stage, it was never a true gift but a straw purchase in order to save a few bucks. Being cheap bungholes was and should be costly. It is as simple as this and nothing more should be read into. Valid case and they correct folks lost.