[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.

[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.

[William Tell]

The whole issue seems pretty simple to me.

For 26 years the BATFE had one interpretation of the law by which the purchase of a firearm by someone who intended to transfer it to another person, which other person was permitted by law to have it, was not a crime.

For twenty years after that time, the BATFE adopted an interpretation that such an act was a crime.

It's been a long-standing practice of the Supreme Court to rule as unconstitutional a law which is so vague that a reasonable person could not determine what the law is.

This case presents a clear case of vague law as demonstrated by the very agency of the federal government charged with interpreting and enforcing gun laws.

I see little justification for having to wait more than an hour for a decision in this case, let along wait until June.