Abramski v U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Straw Purchase case)

[bikemutt]

As I understand the ruling, Nothing has changed. The SC has ruled that the ATF's interpretation of a Straw purchase that they have been using since the early 1990's is correct.

Kinda goes like this.

Buy a gun as a gift, no Straw.

Buy a gun to keep, no Straw.

Buy a gun to keep and later decide sell it, no Straw.

Buy a gun to sell, but you do not have an actual buyer at the time of purchase, No Straw.

Buy a gun for specific person with the intent to be reimbursed $$, Straw.

Buy a Gun for another person with the other persons $$, Straw.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Abramski'a argument that his deal with his Uncle was not a Straw because (A) they transferred the the pistol through and FFL and (B) it was not a Straw because neither one of these players were Prohibited Persons.
Didn't this ruling just clarify this prohibited Persons stuff, meaning that a Straw is a Straw no matter if the recipient of the firearm is a prohibited person or not.

Yes.

 

[itsa pain]

Lesson: Don't lie on a federal form. Even if you think the rule is stupid.

But WMD lie cost trillions and 100,000's lives. That was ok. Border security lie that's ok

 

[itsa pain]

I am not really surprised by this. The Supreme Court ruled against straw purchases made for people who can legally own firearms. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-guns-straw-purchasers/6180633/

Supreme court always rules in favor of bad govt 99% of the time. Affirmative action appointees slobomayor and Kagan did there jobs as intended. The supreme court is made up of mostly sodomites and communists enough to get majority vote. Their power should be sharply curtailed along with the rest of the black robed tyrants. Do you think this country was set up so one guy posing as God could OK obamacare with 80% opposing that effects 300 million?

 

[phil dirt]

What if my brother, who I know to be the legal owner of a firearm that has been sent to a shop for repair work, asks me to pick it up and pay for the work for him? I'm assuming I would have to fill out a form for that transaction. How would one go about that, or could I do so at all under the Court's decision?

 

[Bobson]

Remember though, it is still perfectly legal to purchase a gun and 5 minutes later decide to private sell it to a friend of yours (in my state anyways). Like many things with gun laws it comes down to intention. If you didn't have the intent to do that when originally purchasing it you're legal.

You may very well be perfectly within your rights to sell a gun private party five minutes after you bought it from a dealer, but if questioned, you'll need to prove that there was no intent to do so from the start. Good luck with that.

 

[Bobson]

Buy a gun for specific [not prohibited] person with the intent to be reimbursed $$, Straw.

Buy a Gun for another [not prohibited] person with the other persons $$, Straw.

Why does the law include these two specific scenarios as illegal activity?

If the goal is to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons, then these two scenarios ought not have been included. So obviously, we can see that the goal was not to merely prevent certain people from getting firearms. So then what was the goal?

 

[JRH6856]

Why does the law include these two specific scenarios as illegal activity?

If the goal is to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons, then these two scenarios ought not have been included. So obviously, we can see that the goal was not to merely prevent certain people from getting firearms. So then what was the goal?

The law (at least, the statute passed by Congress) does not include these scenarios. In fact, the statute does not identify a straw purchase as being illegal.
Straw purchases are not prohibited by law, they are prohibited by BATFE regulation. The illegality is giving a false answer on a govt. document (4473).

 

[Bobson]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[JRH6856]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that while straw purchases are not prohibited by the text of the statute, SCOTUS has ruled that they are prohibited by what 5 justices perceive to be the intent of the statute and that BATFE rightfully requires that the "true buyer." be the person taking possession from the FFL.

 

[MErl]

Regarding straw purchases the rules probably derive from the laws requiring license holders to maintain records. There is at least some basis in law, 923.g. It is strange that the law calls out exactly what information a collector must keep but leaves it to the AG for the professional licenses.

For collectors at least the name & address of who gets a gun must be recorded. If the person filling out the form is not that person then there is a quandary.

Or I could be completely wrong.

 

[JRH6856]

Or I could be completely wrong.

As someone said in another thread, "Common sense and the law are not on speaking terms. They only communicate through their lawyers."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...As someone said in another thread, "Common sense and the law are not on speaking terms. They only communicate through their lawyers."

And as I wrote in response:

Common sense? Bah! Like "common sense" gun control?

The best explanation I've read of "common sense" came from a member on TFL, zombietactics:

...There is such a thing as "common sense". It's roughly what would be commonly apparent to someone reasonably well-versed in a topic or field of endeavor.

People often leave out the reasonably well-versed part, and substitute a kind of "I am smart/cool/awesome/tough enough to figure it out without actually knowing anything" attitude. This is often little more than a thin veneer of bluster painted over a surface of raw ignorance.....

 

[JRH6856]

And as I also said on the other thread, "The law requires clarity and clarity requires precise language rather than general terms. English being what it is, precision in language often requires multiple adjectives and descriptive clauses which, for those not trained in their everyday use, can become quite confusing and difficult to understand."

Which, I think, fits quite well with "reasonably well-versed." While common sense may rise from being reasonably well-versed, the sense is usually expressed in more general terms.

Common sense and the law communicate through lawyers because lawyers are reasonably well-versed in the precise use of language that the law requires.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

OK. Riddle me this: In the light(or darkness) of Abramski, will the ATF come up with new or revised rules and a more detailed 4473? Will spouses be able to pick up guns their other half ordered?

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

OK. Riddle me this: In the light(or darkness) of Abramski will the ATF come up with new or revised rules and a more detailed 4473? Will spouses be able to pick up guns their other half ordered?...

Idle speculation. What we now have is confirmation of the long standing ATF interpretation.

 

[JRH6856]

Since a key issue in Abramsky was whose funds were used and who took possession of the gun, I'm still wondering how this ruling might affect a husband and wife with comingled funds or in community property states, if at all. (see post#74)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

What we now have is confirmation of the long standing ATF interpretation.

I don't think there is any dispute that that is the result of the ruling (that plus some disturbing dicta about the court being able to fix laws so they work better than written). The issues that divided the court as well as the districts as closely down the middle as possible seem to be what most are discussing in this thread and the fact that it was such a close call argues that one should not be flippant nor dismissive when discussing those opinions and arguments.

Mike

 

[smkummer]

How come this question is not asked on title 2 purchases?

So I buy a machinegun, short barrel rifle/shotgun or suppressor. The form 5320.04 does not ask this question. Why does a 4473 ask this question? Both title 1 and title 2 purchasers have passed a background check. Wasn't the meaning and intent of the anti straw purchase to prevent someone PROHIBITED from owning a firearm getting one? From what I gather from this, us gun owners have to be very careful how we articulate, that is all that happened with the ruling. Sort of a speak easy situation. All my high grade collectable guns are purchased because I believe someone else will like them and pay me more than what I paid, THAT IS MAINLY WHY I BOUGHT THEM. That may be the same day at a gun show or 40 years down the road. Lawyers, accountants, realtors and now gun enthusiasts have to articulate correctly or else! Kind of makes me feel like I am in Nazi Germany. Who here has not bought a gun because it was a great deal and planned on flipping it?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As we have previously discussed on the ATF flip flop on NISC for NFA weapons Trusts are persons under the NFA but not the the GCA. I cannot be sure if I have made straw purchases of NFA items or not

Mike

 

[Frank Ettin]

...one should not be flippant nor dismissive when discussing those opinions and arguments.

Except the questions have now been decided. The dissent and counter-arguments now become literature -- not law.

....Kind of makes me feel like I am in Nazi Germany...

Phooey! If you were in Nazi Germany, they'd be rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Hispanics, Gays, etc., wholesale and sending them to the gas chambers. When I was growing up I knew people with numbers tattooed on their arms. You don't know anything about being in Nazi Germany.

...I'm still wondering how this ruling might affect a husband and wife with comingled funds or in community property states, if at all...

It wouldn't make any difference. All marital property law systems recognize the mutability of ownership of marital property.

1. Spouses in community property States may agree that certain property acquired after marriage will be the separate property of one or the other, and such an agreement may be shown by conduct.
   
   
2. In a common law marital property law system, property acquired by either spouse during marriage remains his or her separate property unless they have in some way demonstrated an intent to treat the property as joint.

When I write a check on our joint account to buy a gun for myself, it reflects a tacit understanding between me and my wife that money is mine, and therefore the gun is mine. When my wife writes a check on our joint account to buy a pair of shoes for herself, it reflects a tacit understanding between me and my wife that money is hers, and therefore the shoes are hers.

 

[JRH6856]

Who here has not bought a gun because it was a great deal and planned on flipping it?

I've done it several times, but always through private sales with no FFL involvement.


(And thanks, Frank, for the community property clarification)

 

[NickEllis]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that while straw purchases are not prohibited by the text of the statute, SCOTUS has ruled that they are prohibited by what 5 justices perceive to be the intent of the statute and that BATFE rightfully requires that the "true buyer." be the person taking possession from the FFL.

This.

 

[barnbwt]

I wish they'd at least required congress to amend the law to specifically describe and ban straws, since intent or no, it ain't in the statute presently (and any SCOTUS worth its salt would require that at a minimum --we for sure aren't supposed to be governed what isn't written in the law)

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

Who here has not bought a gun because it was a great deal and planned on flipping it?

I've done it several times, but always through private sales with no FFL involvement....

The the decision in Abramski doesn't affect buying a gun with the expectation of flipping it.

1. You're buying the gun for yourself (you're the actual buyer) if --
   
   
   • You're buying the gun with the intention of giving it to someone as a gift.
     
     
   • You're buying the gun with the intention of keeping it, but later you decide to sell it.
     
     
   • You're buying the gun to sell, but you have no buyer. In that case you have to find a buyer and are taking a risk that you will be able to sell it to someone at a price acceptable to you.
   
   
2. But you are not the actually buyer (making it a straw purchase) if --
   
   
   • You've made prior arrangements with a particular person that you will buy the gun and then transfer it to him, and he
     
     
     • gves you the money for it, or
       
       
     • agrees to reimburse you.
     
     
   • In that case, based on well established legal principles, you are not buying the gun for yourself. Rather you are buying the gun as the agent of (or proxy for) the actual purchaser.
   
   
3. So since you (we hope) know what you are doing, you know if it's an illegal straw purchase.
   
   
4. Yes, it's a question of intent. But many crimes involve questions of intent. Prosecutors frequently successfully use all sorts of circumstantial evidence to prove intent to the satisfaction of juries.

 

[barnbwt]

As we have previously discussed on the ATF flip flop on NISC for NFA weapons Trusts are persons under the NFA but not the the GCA. I cannot be sure if I have made straw purchases of NFA items or not

Mike

I wonder if trusts have 14th amendment rights? Sadly, NFA guys are so law-abiding (to excess, even) there is unlikely to ever be a challenge...

TCB