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

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

[Pearls Before Swine]

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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Bump to you, Joe.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[Mad Dawgg]

"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!

[sergeantdave]

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

Sue me.

[Mad Dawgg]

"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!

[sergeantdave]

“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?

[ltc8k6]

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

[ltc8k6]

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.

[editor-surveyor]

This country is beyond hope.
.

[Friendofgeorge]

Confused?

In case you misunderstood me (dont know how) Yes this is a Evil Court

Supports the murder of God`s unborn children, the banishment of God/Christ and His Word from classroom/public square

And Homosexual marriage, just to get started, I got more

[Mad Dawgg]

"Two, no need to call a person names while we sort things out,"

Post 37 :Your entire statement is French surrender monkey BS."

Your blabbing about 99.9999% accomplished is stupid.

Hypocrisy much?

Two words: "Off" and "F***"

you can figure out the order and omissions, if not get an adult to help you...

[Mad Dawgg]

"This country is beyond hope.

yup! ---> Warantless Invasion of Financial Advisor's Home Reveals No Weapons, Just Ammunition

[sergeantdave]

“Hypocrisy much?”

Mad Dawgg, we’re trying to sort out various comments in this thread. If you want to hate, go ahead. I don’t hate you. If you’re upset that I told you to F off, I’m sure I can find a less vituperative comment. Give me a few minutes. In the meantime, try to tone the hate. You’e acting irrational.

[Mad Dawgg]

"You’e acting irrational."

hahaha sorry but I gave you back what I got in kind.

BTW you still have not come up with evidence of your claim are you trying to deflect now or is it just further evidence of your limited understanding of the printed word?

[metalurgist]

Lets say Palmetto State Arms had AR15 lower receivers on sale for $89.00. I tell my brother. He says to get him one too. I charge both of them to my credit card.

When they come in to my FFL dealer we both go to transfer them into our names.

NICS is taking 45 minutes per transfer because it is a Friday after 4PM.

My dealer says that if I want, I can save some money and transfer them both into my name and instead of both my brother and I having to pay $25.00 each for the transfers, I can transfer both into my name for $25.00 for the first gun and $8.00 for the second gun. Total cost $33.00 instead of $50.00, plus the dealer doesn't have to sit on hold for another 45 minutes or longer to make the second transfer.

Penna. law allows me to transfer a long gun to another person without going through a FFL dealer.

MY brother and I both are CCW permit holders.

So, if I were to do this, it would be illegal?

The BATFAGS can go F@ck themselves along with congress and their 68 GCA.

What they can't stand is that they don't know that my brother is the owner of a unregistered AR.

What is the difference if I held this lower receiver for two hours and then asked my brother if he wanted to buy it?

[OneWingedShark]

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

Do you think they're utterly absent?
No; it's about control and perception. — Remember that to the statists perception is more important than reality.
(Remember that militia case, "Huataree" I think it was.)

You don’t know squat about military operations.

Granted; I was only an E-4, I never had to deal with logistics.
But if you're saying that American soldiers would never be the aggressors on their fellow citizens, you are woefully ignorant of history, because they did it to their own fellow-veterans.

[Mad Dawgg]

"What is the difference if I held this lower receiver for two hours and then asked my brother if he wanted to buy it?"

Because the federals want to know where each and every gun is so when the SHTF they can target the individuals who have means to oppose them.

[OneWingedShark]

Mad Dawgg: “Ahh but you see you don’t have to do such.”
Mad Dawgg: 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.
Mad Dawgg: No all-at-once-massive-gun-grab is needed. The anti gun asswipes win by attrition.

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

Not really; with the NSA, FBI, and IRS hooks in general-communication, finance, and general social-mapping records they have a defacto registration. Yeah, they can say they aren't breaking the law by having a database for firearms, but they can generate all the requisite data from their giant data-centers.

And what is the purpose of registration? To find who has firearms. Attacking the capability to resist is the fundamental concept of war — and you say we're in a war, so how can you deny that the enemy would want to deny the means of resistance?

The other thing that our enemy wants is the ability to appear to be "the good guy", if there's violence he wants to be able to say "I'm the authority, so I must be the good-guy." This is why, I think, there's been so much pushing against general American values &mdsh; once someone lashes out they can claim to be the ones attacked.

[Mad Dawgg]

My guess is they will eventually stop with trying to outlaw guns and use the Obamacare model instead and use taxes and loads of red tape to put gun ownership out of reach just like the already did with automatic weapons.

Then they will complicate the process to the point it will be near impossible to comply without risking a federal felony.

They will do it is small baby steps A.K.A. the Overton Window approach...

In fact I think such an operation has been in effect for several years.