Supreme Straw Purchase decision

[normiss 905]

Why no discussion???


You would think some here would be happy with THIS.

My question is, if I legally purchase a weapon, do I no longer have the option of ever selling it???

A bit tighter ruling than I would have hoped for to be honest.
I also understand this case has some uniqueness in the critical details that a straight up purchase, then deciding to outright sell it would be seen differently.

[Amazon 7]

normiss

Why no discussion???


You would think some here would be happy with THIS.

My question is, if I legally purchase a weapon, do I no longer have the option of ever selling it???

A bit tighter ruling than I would have hoped for to be honest.
I also understand this case has some uniqueness in the critical details that a straight up purchase, then deciding to outright sell it would be seen differently.

I think the intent is lying on the federal form. I would still be curious how to handle buying a present for a family member if that is a problem. I have given and I have received firearms as presents all of my life. I would really like clarification on that part of it and if there is a provision for just those purposes and what liability do you have to ensure the recipient has never run afoul of the law.

[billvon 3,132]

>My question is, if I legally purchase a weapon, do I no longer have the option of ever selling it?

Of course you do. But if you lie about your intent to do so on the form, you might go to jail.

[kallend 2,175]

billvon

>My question is, if I legally purchase a weapon, do I no longer have the option of ever selling it?

Of course you do. But if you lie about your intent to do so on the form, you might go to jail.

On the other hand, the SCOTUS on the same day left open the question about whether politicians could be held accountable for deliberate lying.

As usual, politicians have different rules than the rest of us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 905]

Agreed.
In this case the uncle DID lawfully complete a 4473 when the weapon was transferred to him.

It appears this is a case where an officer purchases the weapon to save the uncle a few bucks as it was a "Blue Label" model Glock, sold to LE.

I suddenly think I bought and gave a straw purchase handgun to a buddy of mine years ago.
I bought it for him as a gift.

[turtlespeed 226]

normiss

Agreed.
In this case the uncle DID lawfully complete a 4473 when the weapon was transferred to him.

It appears this is a case where an officer purchases the weapon to save the uncle a few bucks as it was a "Blue Label" model Glock, sold to LE.

I suddenly think I bought and gave a straw purchase handgun to a buddy of mine years ago.
I bought it for him as a gift.

Hmmm . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 905]

Not so quick there buddy.

The cop working in the gun shop helped us complete the transfer immediately after I paid for it.
In 1989.
:D

NOW gifts and discounts appear to be barely illegal.

[champu 1]

As noted in the decision (which I haven't finished reading yet) it says in the instructions on the form...

Quote

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself . . . . You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.

So relax, gifts are still fine.

Since the transfer to the uncle involved an FFL and, therefore, a background check and recording of recipient info (...and had it been, say, California, confirmation that the recipient held a valid handgun safety cert) and there's nothing to suggest that the structure of the purchase had ever intended to circumvent any of that, I think it's plain to see this conviction runs afoul of the spirit of the law.

That said, from what I've read so far, I don't see this decision as particularly ominous.

[lurch 0]

...and yet it's totally ok for gov, cops or agencies to lie to you, cheat, misrepresent, do whatever they want if it helps them sucker you into doing or admitting something letting them grab you and feed you to the machine.

It's so one-sided... the so-called "spirit of the law" means nothing, the only thing that matters is, can we find some way to spin this so we can charge you with something...

""Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

-Ayn Rand

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Every gun I buy is subject to sell at any moment especially if it sucks or is redundant to my needs. This has been known to be a few days later. That box of the form is a crock of shit. It should say I will not sell to anyone not legally and mentally compitent to own a firearm, and you have to check the box.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[normiss 905]

I especially like when we don't do anything to a required box...who the hell checked that box? I didn't.
MOST of the bloxes on my Federal app for an FAA Class III Medical cert were left empty.
Was that a felony?

[Anvilbrother 0]

I wish I followed that route when I went for my class 3 medical for my student pilots license. I divulged that I was on an add medicine and they proceeded to tell me all that money I spent in pilots school is now wasted. I lost my dream to fly because of a fucking pill. I even went off the meds for 90 days and sent in an appeal and lost.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[normiss 905]

I expect some sort of blow back someday.
I chose to not answer questions I feel entirely unrelated to my health.
It's non of their fucking business to me.
I clearly exceed the medical "requirements".


Hearing stories like yours is a big part of why.
Sorry to hear that.

[cgriff 0]

normiss

You would think some here would be happy with THIS.

Not really. This is a lose for both sides... What it means is there will be far fewer people going through an FFL for transfers, so MORE guns will end up in hands they shouldn't. There's no upside here, whichever side you happen to fall on.

[champu 1]

So after having a chance to read the rest of the decision and dissent, my opinion is that Abramski's argument was idiotic and as a result so was the entire SCOTUS ruling addressing it.

He checked the box on the 4473 form that he was, in fact, the actual person to whom the gun was being transferred during the sale. It is completely unreasonable to insist that, when answering this question, the person take into consideration events beyond the completion of a subsequent 4473 form indicating a subsequent transferee. And in disregarding these potential future events, a person would not be at odds with any "structure, history, or purpose" of the statute, as all background checks, tracability, etc. would be maintained.

I don't think this ruling would prevent someone from making the above argument in a future, similar case. (maybe just don't take the check up front with "Glock 19" in the memo line )

[champu 1]

Iago

However, I am curious why ATF flagged the paperwork and the purchase/transfer for investigation.

I'm not sure they did...

Quote

Bruce Abramski, a former police officer ... offered to buy a Glock 19 handgun for his uncle, Angel Alvarez. Accepting his nephew’s offer, Alvarez sent Abramski a check for $400 with “Glock 19 handgun” written on the memo line. Two days later, Abramski went to Town Police Supply, a federally licensed firearms dealer, to make the purchase... ...After Abramski’s name cleared the NICS background check, the dealer sold him the Glock. Abramski then deposited the $400 check in his bank account, transferred the gun to Alvarez [at a federally licensed gun dealership in compliance with state law], and got back a receipt. Federal agents found that receipt while executing a search warrant at Abramski’s home after he became a suspect in a different crime.