[hanamizu]

As I understand it, (and I’m not a lawyer) one can gift or sell a gun to anyone within one’s state (assuming the state law allows it). What you can’t do is buy a gun for someone else and have them pay you for it. And you can’t lie on the form that states that you are the actual purchaser of the gun. This guy went into the gun store with the idea of buying the gun for someone else with their money. That has always been considered a “straw purchase”—the fact that the person he was buying for was legally able to buy the same gun (in his own state) is not an exception to the straw purchase rule.

Now, whether or not the straw purchase law is a good idea or not is another matter. But, in my opinion, the Supreme Court did not expand the straw purchase law at all—they just didn’t contract it.

[Oceander]

As I understand it, (and I’m not a lawyer) one can gift or sell a gun to anyone within one’s state (assuming the state law allows it). What you can’t do is buy a gun for someone else and have them pay you for it. And you can’t lie on the form that states that you are the actual purchaser of the gun. This guy went into the gun store with the idea of buying the gun for someone else with their money. That has always been considered a “straw purchase”—the fact that the person he was buying for was legally able to buy the same gun (in his own state) is not an exception to the straw purchase rule.

Now, whether or not the straw purchase law is a good idea or not is another matter. But, in my opinion, the Supreme Court did not expand the straw purchase law at all—they just didn’t contract it.

I think you got it pretty well. There are arguments on both sides of the case, but I think the majority has the better argument here.

[martinidon]

I could not have stated it better! This is not a case for everyone to get worked up over.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Exactly.

[marktwain]

“Now, whether or not the straw purchase law is a good idea or not is another matter. But, in my opinion, the Supreme Court did not expand the straw purchase law at all—they just didn’t contract it.”

The problem is the “straw purchase” part. The BATFE added that part of the law. It is not original law, it is regulatory add on. You can argue that the original law is ambiguous, but as Scalia noted, ambiguity is to be decided in favor of the defendant.