Supreme Court Oral Arguments on ATF Change of Interpretation Without Change in Law

Gun Watch ^ | 24 January, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The oral arguments in the case of Abramski v. United States, where the Supreme  Court is determining if the ATF can change the definition of what is a "straw buyer" without a change in the statute, and whether a person who transfers a firearm to someone who can legally posses the firearm is involved in a "straw purchase".  The ATF had one interpretation of the statute from the implementation of the law in 1968 until 1994, 26 years later.   Then they started a different interpretation of the law under the Clinton regime.

The arguments did not seem to go well for the government, as several of the justices focused on the ATF change in interpretation of the law, which occurred in 1994, without a change in the statute.  From Mr. Dietz, the defendants attorney:

Another point, Your Honors, is that the

21 plain text interpretation of the statute is one that the

22 agency, ATF, had adopted initially.  In 1979, the Agency 

23 sent a circular to gun dealers that took the -- the

24 precise position that -- that Petitioner is taking here,

25 which is that a purchase of a gun for another lawful gun  

1   owner is permissible.   And in doing so, the -- the

2 Agency said that that was an interpretation of the text

3 of the Gun Control Act.

Justice Roberts Questioning the Government's lawyer, Mr. Palmore: 

17  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  Where in the Act

18 does -- is the basis for the requirement on the form?

19 The form says, you know, if you're not the actual,

20 you're buying for somebody else.  Where is that in the

21 statute?

22 MR. PALMORE:   That is ATF's reasonable

23 interpretation of the statute and I was just going to

24 get to that.

25 JUSTICE SCALIA: Its current one.  It used

1 to have a different one.

2 MR. PALMORE:  That's the current one, and

3 it's been consistent for the last 20 years, Justice

4 Scalia.

Justice Ginsburg, a little later:

23 JUSTICE GINSBURG:  Mr. Palmore, when the

24 Agency changed its view in 1994, there was no change in

25 the statutory text, was there?

1  MR. PALMORE:There was not, Justice 

2  Ginsburg.

3 JUSTICE GINSBURG: And at that time, the

4 interpretation was that you committed the offense if you

5 sold -- if the person, the true buyer, was an

6 unlawful -- a person to whom firearms could not be sold.

7 But if you -- if the ultimate possessor was a lawful

8 possessor, then there was no liability.

9 So the -- the statute has to be open, at

10 least, to either interpretation, no change in the words.

11 The Agency read it one way, and then later changed its

12 mind and read it the other way.

A little later, from Chief Justice Roberts:

22 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, but there

23 wasn't -- there wasn't a strong lobby in Congress saying

24 we're the group that supports Ponzi schemes, so maybe it

25 makes more sense to have a broad construction of that

1 provision.  This language is fought over tooth and nail

2 by people on the, you know, gun control side and the gun

3 ownership side.  And to say -- you look at it and say

4 well, the purpose is this, even though there's no words

5 in the statute that have anything to do with straw

6 purchasers, I think, is very problematic.

 Several other issues were brought up in  the case, including questions as to the utility of the regulation when it is legal to sell to a private purchaser immediately after the purchase, as long as no money changed hands before, that gifts to private parties are also perfectly legal, and other arguments make me believe that the defense ended with an edge in the oral arguments. 

We will not know for certain until the written decisions come out, and that may not be until June.   Oral arguments are not a great predictor of how a decision will finally be rendered, but I find the point that ATF interpreted the law both ways to be quite interesting and helpful to the defense.

My interpretation is that the ATF changed their interpretation because their boss, President Clinton, was extremely anti-second amendment rights, and pushed for as many restrictions as he could possibly obtain.   Whether he went beyond what this court will allow remains to be seen.


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Another argument was whether the question of who the gun was being bought for was material or not.

[Lazamataz]

From what I'm reading, sounds like the ATF is gonna be handed their asses, legally.

Of course, in this current lawless administration, they will simply double-down.

But it is nice to have it on record.

[ctdonath2]

Seems the subsequent transaction went thru a dealer, proving to the gov’t that there was absolutely no grounds for disallowing the transfer.

There is no difference here from person B making a monetary gift to A, A buys a gun thru FFL, decides to dispose of it, and sells it to B thru a FFL for $0. All legal. And I fear the court will disagree with no objective delineation.

[Lurking Libertarian]

In the tax area, where I do a lot of my law practice, SCOTUS has said that the IRS can change regulations even when Congress has not changed the law, so long as the new regulations are "a reasonable interpretation" of the statute (not necessarily "the most reasonable interpretation") and do not contradict the statute's plain language.

I don't like that rule, and would like to see it overturned; perhaps this case will help.

[Lurking Libertarian]

SCOTUS ping.

[Lazamataz]

The only fly in the ointment for this particular case is, if I am not mistaken, a check from Uncle to Buyer predated the Buyer’s purchase.

[marktwain]

The check is what the case is essentially being brought on. Everyone agrees that the firearm was purchased for the uncle, and that he legally could own the firearm.

The questions are basically three:

1. Did the BATF have the authority to change their interpretation of the law without a change in the statute?

2. Did the Congress intend for it to be illegal for a private party to purchase a gun for another private party if both of them could legally possess the firearm?

3. Was it illegal for the purchaser to lie on the 4473 form if the form did not represent the will of Congress?

[Nifster]

don’t count on it.... after all J. Roberts is known for changing his mind

[Lazamataz]

Also, there's some behind-the-scenes information that's been circulating. Apparently Ex-Cop-Dude was a primary suspect in a bank job. They raided him on that, got nothing, but found this and took what they could out of the raid.

Which was this.

[Lazamataz]

Depends if the NSA has gotten any new texts between him and the poolboy.

[marktwain]

“Also, there’s some behind-the-scenes information that’s been circulating. Apparently Ex-Cop-Dude was a primary suspect in a bank job. They raided him on that, got nothing, but found this and took what they could out of the raid.”

Correct. You have to think that they really, really, wanted to get this guy somehow, someway, to pursue this angle. It makes me want to know what their motivations are.

[USS Alaska]

Depends if the NSA has gotten any new texts between him and the poolboy.

Don't forget the video's with the poolboi's german shepard {smith}.

[B4Ranch]

If I loan you the money to buy a gun for yourself and you end up later selling the gun to me and thereby cancelling out the loan, have we broken the law?

[B4Ranch]

>>It makes me want to know what their motivations are.<<

I suspect he was a dirty cop and they wanted to take him down.

[PapaBear3625]

Correct. You have to think that they really, really, wanted to get this guy somehow, someway, to pursue this angle. It makes me want to know what their motivations are.

So the government agents, upon being frustrated in their desire to "get" this guy, decided to find something they could get him for.

Many people here are probably fine with this happening when the target is a strong suspect for criminal behavior. But of this approach becomes routine, what happens when law enforcement wants to "get" you because of your politics?

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[bunkerhill7]

“Supreme Court Oral Arguments on ATF Change of Interpretation Without Change in Law”

viz:
“The oral arguments in the case of Abramski v. United States, where the Supreme Court is determining if the ATF can change the definition of what is a “straw buyer” without a change in the statute, and whether a person who transfers a firearm to someone who can legally posses the firearm is involved in a “straw purchase”.
The ATF had one interpretation of the statute from the implementation of the law in 1968 until 1994, 26 years later. Then they started a different interpretation of
the law under the Clinton regime.”

The evidence points here to “paper arguments”.
The reality is that the Second Amendment is not a “paper argument” but a living breathing REALITY.
Since 1640 families here have been giving their kids to shoot target practice since age of 8.
My uncle gave his son a 22 at the age of 8 to target practice under supervision.

My uncle owned a gun store from 1948-1958-

It was legal then and it is still legal. The court cannot declare something illegal on paper when it was never challenged for 250 years nowhere by nobody.

This is another example of ex post facto “paper arguments” that have no basis in reality of the actual practice and exercise of the Second Amendment.
These are paper arguments are baselessly based upon imaginary non-historical false hypotheticals that have never occurred in reality nor were ever challenged nor declared illegal but actually a practiced right of the citizens for 250 years here.
These anti-Americans communists have to get out of their offices by somehow someway because the people will not stand for communism as we were told to fight against in
the 1950-60s here. Do they think we have no memories or brains-? These judges are idiots.
They never get out of their robes and go out and actually talk to people whose families have kept and borne arms for hundreds of years. They are trying to railroad the people while ATF, Cuomo, Obama and judges pontificate from their ivory towers.

Oh BTW schools had guns here by the door only 213 years ago - a practice to make schools SAFE! - Schools were GUN ZONES then.

“Children of the present day would be somewhat startled
to go to school attended by large dogs, to keep off the bears and other wild animals, to study all day by the crackle of the great fire and back logs, to hear the howling of wolves at rollcall, and see the teacher take from its resting place over the door, a trusty rifle to guard the way home. Such were the first schools in 1800.”
‘Periwinkle’, “The Sentinel”, Feb 21, 1874 [”Ticonderoga Sentinal”, Ticonderoga, NY]

BTW Webster defines “to keep” = “to have control of” = to do what you want to do [with it]”

[Oldpuppymax]

It seems a safe bet that the 4 Court Marxists will side with the ATF. If the 4 “conservatives” rule differently, it might come down to a Roberts ruling once again. We might be able to finally determine whether the Chief Justice is indeed owned by Barack Obama.

[ctdonath2]

And in full compliance with law, the transfer from Buyer to Uncle itself occurred with the full legal process of executing a transfer via FFL. It belonged to Buyer, by all legal views, until he transferred it via nontrivial means to Uncle.

ATF is attempting to force colloquial definitions to supplant legal definitions. This is in full accordance with their directive to act in full malicious obedience with the law: obey it _to_the_letter_ for the purpose of subverting it.

[1010RD]

Ha, ha, ha, ha. You are aware we’re talking about SCOTUS? The Robert’s Court?