Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2014, 10:32:16 AM
The Supreme Court will decide whether or not it should be a crime for someone to purchase a gun for another person if both are legally allowed to possess a firearm.
The decision stems from a 2009 case in which former police officer....
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/01/22/supreme-court-decide-if-one-person-can-buy-gun-another (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/01/22/supreme-court-decide-if-one-person-can-buy-gun-another)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 23, 2014, 10:40:17 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 24, 2014, 09:31:24 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2014, 10:47:32 PM
Ya we can! If they pass a unconstitutional law like the ones in CT NY maryland etc then you bet we have that right to civil disobediance!
Amerca was founded on Civil disobediance!
But ya what if I wanted to buy my wife a pistol or something this heres a bunch of crap!
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 29, 2014, 09:31:51 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346822.php (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346822.php)
Quote
Is Straw Buying a Gun Actually Legal?
Well I always just assumed not since there's a question about it right on the ATF form 4473 and answering yes to buying a gun intended for someone else (a 'straw purchase') will get your transaction refused at a minimum and might result in your prosecution.
But there's a case now before the Supreme Court, Abramski v. United States, that questions whether or not 'straw purchases' really are illegal based on the 2009 arrest of Bruce Abramski for buying a Glock 19 and then immediately selling it to his uncle.
Bruce Abramski is a former cop who is legally allowed to buy firearms. His uncle Angel Alvarez, can also legally buy firearms. Abramski purchased a Glock 19 pistol from a dealer using his law enforcement discount to get a better price, then sold the gun to his uncle. Both transfers-from the Virginia FFL to Abramski, then from Abramski through another FFL to Alvarez in Pennsylvania-followed the law.
The ATF then charged Abramski for perjuring himself on the ATF's form 4473 for saying he was the "actual buyer.
But it turns out that the ATF basically decided on their own that 'straw purchasing' must be illegal and added the above question to the 4473 form back in 1995 and started enforcing it as a law. But no where in any federal statute is there a reference to straw purchases much less a prohibition against them. Even the ATF admits that they're off in penumbra-land when it comes to this rule:
The assistant to the solicitor general, Joseph Palmore, admitted to the court that the ATF was "interpreting" the will of Congress when it added the "actual buyer" question in 1995 on the background form.
And during oral arguments before the court both Roberts and Scalia were highly skeptical of the government's arguments that the 1968 GCA somehow implies that straw purchases are illegal without ever actually mentioning them.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to side with the plaintiff's position that the ATF had overstepped into trying to create criminal law. Referring to the Gun Control Act, the chief justice said, "This language is fought over tooth and nail by people on the gun-control side and the gun-ownership side."
He called it "very problematic" for the government to cite going after law abiding people who resell firearms as a purpose of the law since "there are no words in the statute that have anything to do with straw purchasers."
There's interpreting the will of Congress by government agencies and then there's just making up laws you'd like to enforce. In a reasonable country this kind of overreach would be quickly struck down.