Post by: Goldeneye on June 16, 2014, 12:40:09 PM
http://www.king5.com/news/national/Supreme-Court-rules-against-straw-purchasers-of-guns-263287111.html (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.
Post by: washelkhunter on June 16, 2014, 01:07:35 PM
Post by: dmv9 on June 16, 2014, 01:23:56 PM
Post by: Skinnyguts on June 16, 2014, 07:58:25 PM
Post by: dmv9 on June 17, 2014, 08:26:57 AM
Post by: luvmystang67 on June 17, 2014, 08:38:12 AM
Post by: Special T on June 17, 2014, 10:41:28 AM
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?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on June 17, 2014, 10:47:45 AM
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.