Posted on 06/23/2014 4:58:45 PM PDT by markomalley
Gun law was before the Supreme Court again recently, and while the “right to keep and bear arms” wasn’t under consideration, the ruling handed down by five of the court’s nine justices was especially ironic, given Uncle Sam’s propensity to break his own rules when it comes to who can and cannot buy a firearm.
The case involved the federal government’s ban on “straw” purchases of guns – that is, buying a gun on behalf of someone else. In a 5-4 ruling (perennial swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the court’s leftists), the court agreed with the Obama administration that the ban can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally permitted to own a firearm.
The ruling applies to a Virginia man who bought a firearm with the intention of giving it to a relative in Pennsylvania; the recipient was not prohibited from owning a gun.
As reported by The Associated Press:
The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress’ effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.
In writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan opined that the federal government’s system of background checks and record requirements contribute to the investigation of crimes by law enforcement by tracing firearms to purchasers. She said those provisions wouldn’t mean much if would-be gun buyers could avoid them by having someone else buy the gun and fill out the paperwork. Besides Kennedy, Kagan was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.
Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law’s actual language does not support making it a criminal offense for one lawful gun owner to buy a firearm for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The case stemmed from the purchase of a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, by former police officer Bruce Abramski, Jr., in 2009. He later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. At the time of the purchase, Abramski told the Virginia dealer that he was the “actual buyer” of the gun; he had previously offered to buy the weapon for his uncle using his police discount.
The AP reported that Abramski bought the gun three days after his uncle wrote him a check with “Glock 19 handgun” written in the “memo” line. During the transaction, Abramski answered “yes” when filling out a federal form that asked, “Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.”
Abramski was later arrested by police in connection with a bank robbery investigation in Rocky Mount, Virginia, a charge he was later cleared of. But police summarily charged him with making false statements during the purchase of the Glock.
Subsequent federal and appeals courts rejected Abramski’s argument that he wasn’t really a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms.
Now, here comes the irony.
The Obama administration’s Justice Department – yes, the same one that used straw purchasers to buy “assault weapons” that were allowed to “walk” over the border to Mexico-based drug lords – argued that accepting Abramski’s defense would impede the ability of law enforcement to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from those ineligible to buy them.
Recall “Fast and Furious,” an ATF-run operation in which straw purchasers in the U.S. were permitted to buy thousands of high-power semi-automatic rifles in the U.S. and then transfer them to drug cartels across the border with the aim of “tracing them.” Only, ATF lost track of them – until they showed up at crime scenes on both sides of the border. One such weapon was used to kill U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2011.
So, let’s see if we’ve got this straight, based on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling: Purchases by Americans who are permitted to own guns and resultant transfer of said purchases to another American permitted to own a gun is a no-go; but government-sponsored straw purchases of thousands of military-style semi-automatic rifles and handing them over to Mexican drug cartels “in the name of law enforcement” is permissible. Got it.
Speaking of court cases, did anyone ever get charged for the role they played in Agent Terry’s death? That would be no. Instead, Fast and Furious has disappeared down the rabbit hole of scandals committed by this administration.
Let this be a lesson to you dads who want to buy your son’s or daughter’s first .22 LR or 4-10 shotgun: You can buy it alright, but you’d better not give it away.
Only the government can do that.
Sarah Brady bought a rifle in one state to give to her son in another state. When this was pointed out the MSM immediately lost interest in the story.
Laws don’t apply to the law enforcers, just the peasants.
THE HYPOCRISY OF THIS ADMIN IS BREATHTAKING!!
This is wrong! >>You can buy it alright, but you’d better not give it away.<< You CAN gift a gun to a person legally permitted to own a gun.
and this is how you shut the liberal msm up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.