Supreme Court Ruling on Straw Purchases

[JadeRaven]

So if a Dad buys a deer rifle knowing he's going to give it to his adult son. Wrapped in the box and under the Christmas tree, he's now a felon?

The case was about a guy who bought a gun in order to sell it to someone else.

 

[whitsend]

So if a Dad buys a deer rifle knowing he's going to give it to his adult son. Wrapped in the box and under the Christmas tree, he's now a felon?

Nope. That is in no way related to this ruling.

Now if dad worked somewhere that allowed him, but not family members, to get a discount on said deer rifle, and adult son gave dad the money to buy the rifle for the son, that would be illegal, as it always has been.

Nothing new here.

 

[Hitman]

Guys from what I am reading
if your intent the entire time was to give the firearm to someone else,
Yet on the 4473 you declare you are the true purchaser,
Then you have falsified the 4473 because you are indeed not the true purchaser.

I think this (is) something new.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emperor]

Guys from what I am reading
if your intent the entire time was to give the firearm to someone else,
Yet on the 4473 you declare you are the true purchaser,
Then you have falsified the 4473 because you are indeed not the true purchaser.

I think this (is) something new.

But you ARE the true purchaser! If you are gifting it, that is your business. And anyone that is not intently circumventing the process as the defendant did, should not think twice about it.

The old adage, "Concealed is concealed!" comes to mind!

 

[Hitman]

That is not with the Supreme Court is saying.

How the firearm was acquired has no bearing on what was ruled.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

Guys from what I am reading
if your intent the entire time was to give the firearm to someone else,
Yet on the 4473 you declare you are the true purchaser,
Then you have falsified the 4473 because you are indeed not the true purchaser.

I think this (is) something new.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See the earlier post by two different attorneys in this thread.

See instructions for questions 11.a. on page 4 of form 4473. https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

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 (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.
ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES:
Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer *NO* to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer *YES* to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C.§922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION:If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

This case was the exact same as the Mr. Smith/Mr. Jones example.

 

[Hitman]

I have. So you're saying if Mr. Smith never specifically asks? As long as it's a surprise....

Still sounds so fickle....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

If I use my money to buy a firearm and give it to you, I am the actual buyer. I answer YES. All good.

If you give me money to buy a firearm for you, I am not the actual buyer. If I answer YES, I broke the law.

 

[Bigtex1959]

I agree with Hitman.

 

[whitsend]

This ruling changes nothing about gift purchases.

 

[Hitman]

Like I said Bigtex sadly only us law-abiding citizens even care to think about this stuff, trying to make sure we do the right thing...criminals ...they just don't care :/

EDIT>

Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, voiced his dissatisfaction with the decision.

*The ruling prevents no violent criminal acts from taking place.
This ruling isn’t intended to prevent crime. It is solely intended to harass citizens
seeking to exercise a constitutionally protected right,* said Stockman.
*If Mr. Abramski had bought the gun under his name, and given [the gun] to his uncle as a gift,
it would be perfectly legal. But since money changed hands, with paperwork submitted
to the federal government every step of the way,
the Court pretended a crime had just been prevented.*

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bigtex1959]

This ruling changes nothing about gift purchases.

Sure it does. Read it again. It's all about intent when you fill out the form.

 

[Hitman]

Sure it does. Read it again. It's all about intent when you fill out the form.

I'm not sure it (does),
but it sure looks like it (could).

I've read the entire ruling. ZZZzzzZZzzzz ....
Some parts more than others and some not so much.

The most interesting factoid about this case, is had Abramski lived in District 5(our district)
the 5th Circuit would have ended all of this by vacating the charge b/c they already made a ruling on
(what is) and isn't considered a (Straw purchase).
That was the ruling he used to appeal his conviction.
Problem was, the 4th Circuit doesn't have to agree with another Circuits ruling.

The super short version in their(5th's) (own) words; US v Polk 97';

Thus, if the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly,
§ 922(a)(6) liability (under a *straw purchase* theory) does not attach.

In US vs Polk 1997 the 5th Circuit plainly said that (if) both parties could legally own a firearm
there could be no such attachment of a Straw Purchase charge
no matter how it played out.

Basically, until MONDAY when SCOTUS overruled all the circuits,
the only way anyone living in the 5th Circuit could have been charged with a Straw Purchase
is if you actually DID purchase a gun for a prohibited person. (The original INTENT of the Law)

If you want to read the case it's Count 6 in the US vs Polk 1997 Case.

However the 4th Circuit had dealt with no such case
so when this got put on their desk, they disagreed with Abramski using the 5th Circuits Ruling
and thus requested support from above. Which they got

Anyway, back to the SCOTUS ruling,
reading through the pages the number 1 thing they are shooting for
is desperately wanting a background check for every gun transferred no matter how it's transferred.

She even says it a few times that avoiding the PERMANENT RECORDS(and they are permanent)
of identifying who bought what from an FFL,
is completely useless if the true buyer doesn't fill out the 4473.

The only thing keeping Louisiana safe from an all out registry,
as well as every other state who allows such
is having the ability to transfer Firearms Privately without restrictions and/or paperwork.

If all Firearms had to go through FFL's, which is their aim, be sure of that
then there will be a permanent record of who bought what.....and
if you don't have what you bought under some sort of investigation,
you'd be in hot water.

But as long as Private Sales are unhinged, there is no threat of that.

I think this sort of ruling though,
is a shot across the bow,
much closer than it seems
some are willing to admit.

 

[geoney]

They would have to prove intent. In this case they did.

 

[323MAR]

They proved it because the "offenders" were not acting like criminals. Now they have been converted into criminals by a stupid law that actually makes it more difficult to trace a gun.
In any case, it is bad luck to abuse the Glock Blue Label program.

 

[madwabbit]

How is this so confusing?

geez

 

[Jack]

Sure it does. Read it again. It's all about intent when you fill out the form.

No, if you are giving someone a firearm, they wouldn't be paying you for it. You don't pay for gifts.

 

[tim9lives]

" Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork. "

Another example of the cure being worse than the disease.

The reason given by SCOTUS is record keeping by LE. Yet...if the original purchaser sold the same gun he purchased one week after he purchased it....getting paid for said gun 1 week later, he would be good to go.

In any case...In my opinion...Its just another example of an over reaching pseudo police state. The state created a criminal. This man was not and is not a criminal until the state stepped into the mix and created a criminal.

There is no law stating someone must provide a record of a sale of a second hand firearm. That in and of itself....negates SCOTUS logic for the ruling which created a criminal.

 

[oleheat]

Any of you feel safer/more at ease now that they've busted this guy?


It's been a couple of weeks, and the peace of mind still hasn't hit me yet.

I'm a bit disappointed. This was supposed to be a big victory the fight against gun violence, right?


Guess I'll keep waiting.

 

[JadeRaven]

The law was the law and he chose to buy a gun to sell to someone else. It's not like they passed the law after the fact.

Does the speed limit create a criminal?