Supreme Court rules against straw purchasers of guns

[Goldeneye]

Saw this on the news.  I hadn't heard much about it before this. 

http://www.king5.com/news/national/Supreme-Court-rules-against-straw-purchasers-of-guns-263287111.html




WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a rare blow to the gun lobby Monday by ruling that purchasers must report when they are buying firearms for other people.

The decision upheld two lower courts that had ruled against so-called "straw purchasers," even though the justices acknowledged that Congress left loopholes in gun control laws passed in the 1960s and 1990s.

For gun purchasers to be allowed to buy from licensed dealers without reporting the actual final owners of the firearms, the justices said, would make little sense.

The 5-4 ruling was wriitten by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent for the court's conservatives.

During oral arguments in the case in January, Kagan noted that without such a finding, "it does not matter whether the ultimate transferee was Al Capone or somebody else." And Justice Samuel Alito said it would render Congress' work "utterly meaningless."

The straw purchaser in the case was a former Virginia police officer who bought a Glock 19 handgun for his uncle in Pennsylvania. Both were legal gun owners. But the purchaser, Bruce James Abramski, filled out a federal form indicating that he was the "actual buyer" of the firearm.

His attorney, Richard Dietz, argued that a compromise reached in Congress decades ago was meant to focus only on the initial buyer. Even if it did intend to identify the ultimate purchaser, he said, Abramski didn't violate the law because his uncle was licensed to own guns.

"Congress didn't use terms like 'true buyer' or 'true purchaser' or 'actual buyer' because they are not concerned about the ultimate recipients of firearms or what happens to a gun after it leaves the gun store," Dietz said.

The Justice Department, seeking to uphold the two lower court rulings against Abramski, argued that Congress always sought to identify the ultimate gun purchasers but did not want to intrude on private transactions.

[washelkhunter]

Reads like one can still purchase a firearm and Gift it to someone without a following paper trail.

[dmv9]

Not across state lines.

[Skinnyguts]

What happens if you buy a gun and move across state lines? Can you then?

[dmv9]

You never changed ownership, right? Also, the gun has to follow the new state rules. IE don't move to california with a gun that takes more than 10 rounds.

[luvmystang67]

This is really no change... They (FFLs) already wouldn't sell you a gun if you said it was for someone else.  No functional change, at least not here in WA.

[Special T]

Funny part about this Court ruleing is that the cop is getting in trouble BECAUSE he tried to do his due diligance and make sure the weapon was "Registered" to the new owner. That extra effort of a papertrail allowed the court to nail him. If he had just doen a cash sale then there would be little way for them to  nail him.

Unfortuanlty this is not the first time i have seen some one trying to do the right thing get in trouble. The laws are so convoluted that the real intent is not important.

I( do think this is interesting because  i remeber reading an article about some gun shops and a distributer getting pinched on RICO charges for  changing LEO orders to civilian orders to get to the front of the line and make more $. I belive those were Glock Guns as well. BIG price difference i think.$400?

[Fl0und3rz]

This really did not change the law.  Generally speaking, it only says that the authority that ATF claimed to have to prevent straw purchases was inherent in the law that congress actually passed (which did not give the ATF such authority). 

The noteworthy aspect is that, as pointed out above, it is better to not do the ATF's job for them by creating records that can be used against you or others.  Otherwise, it is your word against theirs.