• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"Straw Purchaser" SCOTUS Ruling

Mike

Well-known member
Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

Updated: 06/16/2014 11:16 am CDT

By SAM HANANEL Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.

The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.

Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The case began after 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. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers - not purchasers - to run federal background checks on people buying guns.

Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.

The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Can firearms still be gifted after Abramski?

Posted on June 17, 2014 by John Pierce


GunsYesterday the United States Supreme Court handed down a 5-to-4 ruling in the case of Abramski v. United States.

The court held that a buyer may not answer ‘Yes’ to the question ‘Are you the actual transferee / buyer of the firearm’ when they have been given money by a third party to purchase the firearm even if the transfer to the third party also goes through a background check.

The case arose when Abramski’s uncle gave him money to purchase a handgun with Abramski’s law enforcement discount. Abramski purchased the firearm, answering ‘Yes’ to the question ‘Are you the actual transferee / buyer of the firearm’ and subsequently transferred the firearm to his uncle via a licensed dealer. Abramski’s uncle himself completed a 4473 and passed the federal background check.

The court held that regardless of the uncle’s status, Abramski’s answer was a material misrepresentation of fact, subjecting him to prosecution under 18 USC § 924(a)(1)(A).

Having said that, let me answer a question that I have been asked repeatedly over the last 24 hours. Abramski did not affect the legality of buying a firearm as a gift. The ATF has repeatedly held that a buyer purchasing a firearm as a bona fide gift is the actual buyer of the firearm. In fact, it specifically states this on page 4 of the 4473 form that a buyer completes when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.


ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11 a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), (n), or (x).

The facts of the Abramski case limit the holding to those cases where the money for a purchase comes from one person who requests that another person purchase the firearm for them regardless of the reason or whether the initial purchaser is a prohibited possessor.

You may continue to give the gift of self-defense to family and loved ones.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Tam said:
Mike said:
Nice little Cowboy gun. But it ain't a secret anymore. :wink:

Our 35th Ann. was in May so I know about the rifle and I love it. :D

I bet you do. I bought mine a .357 mag revolver a few years ago but all she will shoot in it is .38 Specials. She don't like the recoil. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Mike said:
Tam said:
Mike said:
Nice little Cowboy gun. But it ain't a secret anymore. :wink:

Our 35th Ann. was in May so I know about the rifle and I love it. :D

I bet you do. I bought mine a .357 mag revolver a few years ago but all she will shoot in it is .38 Specials. She don't like the recoil. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I took it out one day to target practice and came back with a nice black and blue mark from the recoil so I went and got some 38's to try and amazing difference in the recoil but for some reason it doesn't want to reject the 38's the way it should.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Tam said:
Mike said:
Tam said:
Our 35th Ann. was in May so I know about the rifle and I love it. :D

I bet you do. I bought mine a .357 mag revolver a few years ago but all she will shoot in it is .38 Specials. She don't like the recoil. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I took it out one day to target practice and came back with a nice black and blue mark from the recoil so I went and got some 38's to try and amazing difference in the recoil but for some reason it doesn't want to reject the 38's the way it should.
It should eject them OK, fine & dandy. Make Muddy put on his spectacles one day and watch one eject as slow as you can to see what's going on inside it. Will it eject the unfired cartridges OK, or is it the empties that hang up?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Mike said:
Tam said:
Mike said:
I bet you do. I bought mine a .357 mag revolver a few years ago but all she will shoot in it is .38 Specials. She don't like the recoil. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I took it out one day to target practice and came back with a nice black and blue mark from the recoil so I went and got some 38's to try and amazing difference in the recoil but for some reason it doesn't want to reject the 38's the way it should.
It should eject them OK, fine & dandy. Make Muddy put on his spectacles one day and watch one eject as slow as you can to see what's going on inside it. Will it eject the unfired cartridges OK, or is it the empties that hang up?

Did that and it looks as if the ridge on the 38 shell is a hair smaller and the gun is letting loose before it fully ejects. Thinking we might have to try a different make of cartridge to see if it works better.
 

Latest posts

Top