Supreme Court to Decide If One Person Can Buy Gun For Another

Fox News Insider ^ | January 22, 2014 10:24 AM | Fox News Insider

[Durus]

Form a regiment? The Patriots of the day fought the British in very unconventional ways which is why they won. Forming a regiment to fight a modern revolutionary war would be the equivalent of lining up against redcoats. While I'm a patriot I'm not suicidal.

Ruby Ridge and Waco were spun very well, enough to diffuse a patriotic response. Generally speaking patriots are not going to be gung-ho to take up arms for White Supremacist/Nazis or Pedophiles/drug dealers (how they spun these acts of tyranny).

Of course we still have people that believe whatever the government/media tell them, even good conservatives.

[itsahoot]

Of course we still have people that believe whatever the government/media tell them, even good conservatives.

I am not one of them.

I said before this man was elected, that if elected he had no intention of leaving office, and I see nothing to date that dissuades me of that opinion.

For the marksmanship challenged.

This $22K sniper rifle comes with a WiFi server, USB ports, an iPad mini … and aims itself.

[Durus]

"I said before this man was elected, that if elected he had no intention of leaving office, and I see nothing to date that dissuades me of that opinion".

You might very well be right. It's going to be pretty hard to spin that as some crackhead/pedophile/Aryan nation plot isn't it?

[tumblindice]

Well, 8 months later the Supremes Ka-gan, stooge Kennedy, `Tweetie-bird’ Ginsberg, Stevie Breyer and Red Sonia decided that even if defendant Abramski’s uncle could have satisfied the requirements of federal form 4473, and even though Abramski was telling anyone who would listen that he was using his police discount to buy the gun for his uncle so that his uncle could save that money.

Abramski argued that Congress’s purpose in passing the law was to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of convicted felons, lunatics (and Democrats); and he further argued that the goal of Congress was not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.
Now we flash back to the police trying to hang a bank robbery on Abramski. Nothing came of that, so they got out his federal form 4473 and examined it carefully.
Abramksi bought the Glock 19 after receiving a check from his uncle that had written on the memo line “Glock 19 handgun”.
He apparently conceded that if he had bought the gun for an unlawful gun owner, that would be a violation. But he’s not a gun dealer. He just checked that he planned to buy it. Once he buys it, it’s his to do with as he wished. Then he was going to `sell’ it to his uncle (that is, if he wanted to preserve family amity).

At least this is the way we’ve always done things in a free market economy.

26 states submitted opinions supporting Abramski’s position, while 9 states and Wash DC filed (`We Heart Obama’) papers ...
And the SCOTUnitedStates ruled that it is unlawful for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner.