Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to Decide If One Person Can Buy Gun For Another
Fox News Insider ^ | January 22, 2014 10:24 AM | Fox News Insider

Posted on 01/22/2014 4:33:05 PM PST by Mad Dawgg

The Supreme Court will decide whether or not it should be a crime for someone to purchase a gun for another person if both are legally allowed to possess a firearm.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnewsinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abramski; banglist; docket; lawsuit; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last
How to Disarm America.

Step One Mandatory Gun Registration.

Step Two Make it illegal to gift guns. (If its illegal to give someone a gun then guns can not be transferred to someone upon the death of the owner.)

Step Three wait for a Crisis and use it to end sales of guns to the general public.

1 posted on 01/22/2014 4:33:05 PM PST by Mad Dawgg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
It's hard to fathom any legal basis to deny the gifting of a gun to a family member, a friend, etc.

but then again, it's still hard to fathom that muzzies, along with commies, are running the WH -

and that they own the Supremes

2 posted on 01/22/2014 4:40:23 PM PST by maine-iac7 (Christian is as Christian does - by their fruits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

So why, unlike voting, I have to produce an ID to buy a gun to exercise a Constitutional right?


3 posted on 01/22/2014 4:42:25 PM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I hope so. The Gift of a gun to a trained a responsible person is a great thing, perhaps a life saving event. The gift-gun; perfect for weddings, birthdays, college graduation or the senior relative who still has their upper body strength, and now lives in a questionable part of town.


4 posted on 01/22/2014 4:42:54 PM PST by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I don’t know that the “gun” is what is at issue here. What if someone purchases a chronic alcoholic a car? What if someone purchases an anarchists’ cookbook for a muslim? What if someone purchases a dime bag for a pResident?
Where are the liabilities and who exactly is responsible for the giftee’s actions?


5 posted on 01/22/2014 4:45:30 PM PST by Ghost of SVR4 (So many are so hopelessly dependent on the government that they will fight to protect it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

all anti-gun crap aside, it is an interesting question, from a layman’s legal sense at least. Minors can’t purchase alcohol, for example, and it’s also illegal for adults to purchase and give booze to minors. An imperfect analogy, but that’s why I think it’s interesting.


6 posted on 01/22/2014 4:46:16 PM PST by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
So why, unlike voting, I have to produce an ID to buy a gun to exercise a Constitutional right?

Because the one is more dangerous to the tyrant than the other.

7 posted on 01/22/2014 4:46:55 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

No mystery how this evil court will rule


8 posted on 01/22/2014 4:47:13 PM PST by Friendofgeorge ( Palin 2016 or bust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

“...The decision stems from a 2009 case in which former police officer
bought a discounted gun and then sold it to his uncle...”
-
I’m over 60.
Over the last 40 plus years I have given several guns as gifts
and I have been given several guns as gifts.
The federal government can not stop that unless they create a national gun registry.


9 posted on 01/22/2014 4:49:25 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Just ban the 2nd Amendment already, some of us are bored and suffering from overabundant ammo fumes.


10 posted on 01/22/2014 4:50:45 PM PST by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
"all anti-gun crap aside, it is an interesting question, from a layman’s legal sense at least. "

It'll be the end of buying pitchers of beer.

11 posted on 01/22/2014 4:54:16 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

This is crazy. You cannot gift a gun?


12 posted on 01/22/2014 4:54:39 PM PST by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I already know the answer, regardless of what the black robed appointees say.

The answer is yes.


13 posted on 01/22/2014 4:58:08 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lee martell
I received a Browning Nomad .22 for High School Graduation in '74.

Bestest present ever!

 photo nomad.jpg

14 posted on 01/22/2014 4:59:58 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

“TO KEEP” MEANS “TO HAVE CONTROL OF”- WEBSTER`S DICTIONARY

TO CONTROL MEANS YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.

THESE JUDGES ARE DOING A CLINTON TRYING TO DEFINE THE WORD “THE”

THROW THE BUMS OUT


15 posted on 01/22/2014 5:01:10 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I’m sure John Roberts is there on the side of the Second Amendment. He can call it a “tax”.


16 posted on 01/22/2014 5:04:55 PM PST by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
In the US Argument to the Supremes:
Under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), it is unlawful “for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a * * * licensed dealer * * * knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement * * * intended or likely to deceive such* * * dealer * * * with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale * * * under the provisions of this chapter.”
My bold above, on what I think is the key phrase. Somebody purchasing a gun, intending to transfer it to someone who was legally ineligible to own a firearm, would be in violation. Mr Alvarez legally purchased the gun and took possession. He subsequently sold it to his uncle, making the transfer through a licensed dealer, who would have had to run a background check on the uncle. Both he and the uncle were legally able to own a gun.
17 posted on 01/22/2014 5:05:43 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

A national gun registry will NOT stop the movement of guns between individuals. It will ONLY stop the movement of guns between law abiding sheeple. Society’s unconscionable ne’er-do-wells will continue to share their hardware on an adhoc basis.
Apart from the tendency of law abiding sheeple to remain in compliance with whatever anti-Constitutional edicts emanate from Mordor on the Potomac (Thx, Mike Church), a national gun registry will only come into play when a firearm is of interest to the LEO community; and, then, only to the extent that a registry can provide the chain of custody of said firearm.


18 posted on 01/22/2014 5:05:47 PM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

In Texas, It’s legal for a parent to purchase alcohol for their minor child in a restaurant, for example.


19 posted on 01/22/2014 5:06:03 PM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
it is an interesting question, from a layman’s legal sense at least. Minors can’t purchase alcohol, for example, and it’s also illegal for adults to purchase and give booze to minors. An imperfect analogy, but that’s why I think it’s interesting.

I think the analogy is too imperfect. A minor cannot have alcohol, regardless of the method of obtaining it. This case deals with US citizens who have a right to own a gun, and can buy it themselves.

In essence, this is about government interference in private transfers of goods that both parties are legally allowed to own. The trick is that the right to own a gun is getting detached from the right to get a gun without some government agent making a note in your permanent database records. Subjects of California do not have this right, with exception of spouses.

20 posted on 01/22/2014 5:06:05 PM PST by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

They don’t need to bother. I already know it’s legal.


21 posted on 01/22/2014 5:06:07 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

An American tradition is a father giving his son his first gun. He teaches him hunting and fishing and within those GOD gifted marvels... he will turn him into a man.


22 posted on 01/22/2014 5:17:33 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
"They don’t need to bother. I already know it’s legal."

for now...

23 posted on 01/22/2014 5:19:09 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

-
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-01493qp.pdf
-
12-1493 ABRAMSKI V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 706 F.3d 307
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-4992

QUESTION PRESENTED:
When a person buys a gun intending to later sell it to someone else,
the government often prosecutes the initial buyer under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)
for making a false statement about the identity of the buyer that is
“material to the lawfulness of the sale.”
These prosecutions rely on the court-created “straw purchaser” doctrine,
a legal fiction that treats the ultimate recipient of a firearm as the
“actual buyer,” and the immediate purchaser as a mere “straw man.”

The lower courts uniformly agree that a buyer’s intent to resell a gun
to someone who cannot lawfully buy it is a fact
“material to the lawfulness of the sale.”
But the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits
have split with the Fifth and Ninth Circuits
about whether the same is true when the ultimate recipient
can lawfully buy a gun.

The questions presented are:
1. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm
to another lawful buyer in the future a fact
“material to the lawfulness of the sale”
of the firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)?

2. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm
to another lawful buyer in the future a piece of information
“required ... to be kept” by a federally licensed firearm dealer
under § 924(a)(I)(A)?

CERT. GRANTED 10/15/2013


24 posted on 01/22/2014 5:19:36 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

You sir have scored the only correct and AMERICAN answer.


25 posted on 01/22/2014 5:20:19 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge
No mystery how this evil court will rule

We're supposed to forget Heller, now? The wind on FR changes more rapidly than I expected.

26 posted on 01/22/2014 5:22:53 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

The Corrupts can decide whatever they want, I’m going to do whatever I want.


27 posted on 01/22/2014 5:23:01 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greysard
A minor cannot have alcohol, regardless of the method of obtaining it.

I think you are incorrect here — or are you willing to allow the regulation of sugar, water, and yeast? (A la Wickard)
See homebrewing — note that their legal reasoning here is deeply flawed: if the 18th amendment gave the federal government the authority to regulate alcohol, then its repeal (by the 21st) makes all such laws invalid as they no longer have authority.

28 posted on 01/22/2014 5:23:49 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

“Step Three wait for a Crisis and use it to end sales of guns to the general public.”

Really? Do you think that the cowards in the ATF and FBI are combat-trained organizations that can disarm Americans? Site their training and presidential unit citation awards.

The alphabet federal fascist agencies, including the FBI, ATF, Secret Service and US marshals, are state-sponsored terrorist organizations. Their mission is to murder women and children and spread terror amongst the population.

These 50 IQ apes are not Rambos.


29 posted on 01/22/2014 5:25:00 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

>>When a person buys a gun intending to later sell it to someone else,
the government often prosecutes the initial buyer under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)
for making a false statement about the identity of the buyer that is
“material to the lawfulness of the sale.”<<

Right here is the reason you should never buy firearms from dealers. Always buy from private parties!


30 posted on 01/22/2014 5:30:33 PM PST by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
"Really? Do you think that the cowards in the ATF and FBI are combat-trained organizations that can disarm Americans?"

Ahh but you see you don't have too do such.

When you make it mandatory to register all weapons and then make it illegal to sell guns to citizens and then make it illegal to transfer guns as gifts the gun problem is fixed bit by bit AND in 40 to 50 years is 99.9999% accomplished.

No all-at-once-massive-gun-grab is needed. The anti gun asswipes win by attrition.

31 posted on 01/22/2014 5:31:51 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Laws are made to be broken. And in the case of this one if not properly ruled, will be broken. I will give, whatever I want, to who ever I want, if they are fit to hold it.

Eff Them. All of Them.


32 posted on 01/22/2014 5:32:05 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
On consideration, the issue seems to be not that he bought the gun and gifted it to his Uncle, and not that he bought the gun and subsequently decided to sell it to his uncle, but that he bought the gun on behalf of his uncle, essentially using his uncle's money either because his uncle gave him the purchase price or because the uncle repaid the purchase price rather than paying as a purchase from him, in order to get his uncle a discount.

ATF Form 4473 asks in question 11a.: "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. (And then the form notes an exception for picking up a repaired firearm for someone else.)

I think what we got here is a technicality.

33 posted on 01/22/2014 5:39:39 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crz
"I will give, whatever I want, to who ever I want, if they are fit to hold it."

Just remember Ruby Ridge happened because a shotgun was one quarter of an inch too short and turned Randy Weaver from Law Abiding Citizen into Federal Felon and subsequently the ATF and a host of other agencies descended onto his property even going to the extent of building a special bridge so they could get tanks next to his house.

And remember its legal to own a weapon deemed too short you just need to pay a 200 dollar tax.

Randy Weaver's wife and son were killed over 200 bucks due to Uncle Sam.

34 posted on 01/22/2014 5:40:35 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Then only robots will have guns?


35 posted on 01/22/2014 5:43:34 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave; Mad Dawgg
>> “Step Three wait for a Crisis and use it to end sales of guns to the general public.”
>
Really? Do you think that the cowards in the ATF and FBI are combat-trained organizations that can disarm Americans? Site their training and presidential unit citation awards.

Imagine, if you will: the alphabet-agencies with a coordinated, methodological operation. (Full coordination is not required.)

  1. Shut off the power to some large/largeish city. (False-flag? Swift/rapid-dominance strike? Doesn't really matter.)
  2. Control communications leaving the area. (FCC, FAA, FEMA.)
  3. Show up with 'help' and 'emergency relief' — food-distribution. (FEMA, military, non-local national-guard?)
  4. Strictly control travel in/out of the area; use 'security' as an excuse.
  5. Have false-flag events, or maybe just spread rumors [if the control-area is large and segregated enough], of attacks on relief-workers.
  6. Institute hunts of people illegitimately using firearms. (A good way to get the population to work with you in disarming others; also taking advantage of non-trained personnel and heightened fight-or-flight impulses to encourage an incident.)
  7. Institute "gun buybacks" or trade-ins with uncommon-caliber munitions. (Say the 5.7x28)
  8. Repeat as necessary.
The above could also be tailored so that terrorist-/militia-cells are operating in the country and people need to get to the city for protection/security.

The alphabet federal fascist agencies, including the FBI, ATF, Secret Service and US marshals, are state-sponsored terrorist organizations. Their mission is to murder women and children and spread terror amongst the population.

The the above doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

These 50 IQ apes are not Rambos.

You don't need people who think to pull something like this off; you need pople who follow orders.

36 posted on 01/22/2014 5:47:06 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

“Ahh but you see you don’t have too do such.”

Your entire statement is French surrender monkey BS.

You don’t register weapons in war. Do you understand that we are at war? I don’t think you do. Your blabbing about 99.9999% accomplished is stupid.


37 posted on 01/22/2014 5:48:28 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

What a stupid thing to make to court!!!!!!

When are we going to ask if it is lawful for one driver to buy another a car if both have valid driver’s licenses?


38 posted on 01/22/2014 5:57:58 PM PST by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Not a good analogy at all. In this case, both the buyer and his friend are allowed to own guns.


39 posted on 01/22/2014 6:03:01 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You don’t know squat about military operations.

Your fevered example of “coordinated, methodological operation” is hilarious and an example of DU surrender monkey trolls that we see here on FR.

Do you really think that patriots hang out in large cities?


40 posted on 01/22/2014 6:11:10 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
He subsequently sold it to his uncle, making the transfer through a licensed dealer, who would have had to run a background check on the uncle.

I think the key phrase legally, which would allow a narrow ruling, is "making the transfer through a licensed dealer." Many of us here would like something broader. There's no other reason to restrict this if the gun data is not kept as a secret registry.

41 posted on 01/22/2014 6:14:48 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg; Joe Brower

Bump to you, Joe.


42 posted on 01/22/2014 6:19:14 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

The devil is in the details. That is, the SCOTUS could rule narrowly, that a gun transfer between those who can legally own guns is legal, but applied only to this case.

Or, they could make a “narrow band” ruling, that such transfers are only legal if, at the time of the initial sale, the purchaser wrote on the form that the gun was for himself, and only after the sale was completed could they then transfer the gun to someone else.

Or, it could be a “wider band” ruling, that the transfer is legal, unless the original purchaser had actual knowledge or reason to suspect that the buyer could not legally own a gun.

Of course, there are several other possible rulings, but this may be a case where just winning isn’t enough.


43 posted on 01/22/2014 6:21:35 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
"Your entire statement is French surrender monkey BS."

I want you to understand that i mean this from the bottom of my heart:

if you will please read my tagline.

And understand you are a kneejerk idiot!

44 posted on 01/22/2014 6:27:09 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Well, that’s the kind of response to be expected from a 30 IQ, knuckle-dragging liberal ape.

Sue me.


45 posted on 01/22/2014 6:31:23 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
"Well, that’s the kind of response to be expected from a 30 IQ, knuckle-dragging liberal ape."

Yeah well lets us see, you assumed I am a liberal, find me a post proving such Jack Wad!

46 posted on 01/22/2014 6:34:53 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

“Yeah well lets us see, you assumed I am a liberal, find me a post proving such Jack Wad!”

For one, don’t assume that I dislike you; we’re sorting out various comments. Two, no need to call a person names while we sort things out, Mad Dawgg.

Let’s begin at the beginning: Why do you hate me?


47 posted on 01/22/2014 6:44:50 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Strange. He could have given the uncle the gun with no problem.


48 posted on 01/22/2014 6:46:56 PM PST by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

4473 instructions pretty clearly say that gifting a gun to an eligible person is fine and you can affirm that you are the actual buyer when making the purchase.

In NC though, since about 1996, all handgun transfers require a purchase permit, which requires a background check. All transfers of handguns, no exceptions.


49 posted on 01/22/2014 6:50:41 PM PST by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

This country is beyond hope.
.


50 posted on 01/22/2014 6:56:17 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson