FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 01/23/2014 10:00:19 AM PST by marktwain
Of course, in this current lawless administration, they will simply double-down.
But it is nice to have it on record.
Seems the subsequent transaction went thru a dealer, proving to the gov’t that there was absolutely no grounds for disallowing the transfer.
There is no difference here from person B making a monetary gift to A, A buys a gun thru FFL, decides to dispose of it, and sells it to B thru a FFL for $0. All legal. And I fear the court will disagree with no objective delineation.
I don't like that rule, and would like to see it overturned; perhaps this case will help.
SCOTUS ping.
The only fly in the ointment for this particular case is, if I am not mistaken, a check from Uncle to Buyer predated the Buyer’s purchase.
The check is what the case is essentially being brought on. Everyone agrees that the firearm was purchased for the uncle, and that he legally could own the firearm.
The questions are basically three:
1. Did the BATF have the authority to change their interpretation of the law without a change in the statute?
2. Did the Congress intend for it to be illegal for a private party to purchase a gun for another private party if both of them could legally possess the firearm?
3. Was it illegal for the purchaser to lie on the 4473 form if the form did not represent the will of Congress?
don’t count on it.... after all J. Roberts is known for changing his mind
Which was this.
Depends if the NSA has gotten any new texts between him and the poolboy.
“Also, there’s some behind-the-scenes information that’s been circulating. Apparently Ex-Cop-Dude was a primary suspect in a bank job. They raided him on that, got nothing, but found this and took what they could out of the raid.”
Correct. You have to think that they really, really, wanted to get this guy somehow, someway, to pursue this angle. It makes me want to know what their motivations are.
Don't forget the video's with the poolboi's german shepard {smith}.
If I loan you the money to buy a gun for yourself and you end up later selling the gun to me and thereby cancelling out the loan, have we broken the law?
>>It makes me want to know what their motivations are.<<
I suspect he was a dirty cop and they wanted to take him down.
So the government agents, upon being frustrated in their desire to "get" this guy, decided to find something they could get him for.
Many people here are probably fine with this happening when the target is a strong suspect for criminal behavior. But of this approach becomes routine, what happens when law enforcement wants to "get" you because of your politics?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“Supreme Court Oral Arguments on ATF Change of Interpretation Without Change in Law”
viz:
“The oral arguments in the case of Abramski v. United States, where the Supreme Court is determining if the ATF can change the definition of what is a “straw buyer” without a change in the statute, and whether a person who transfers a firearm to someone who can legally posses the firearm is involved in a “straw purchase”.
The ATF had one interpretation of the statute from the implementation of the law in 1968 until 1994, 26 years later. Then they started a different interpretation of
the law under the Clinton regime.”
The evidence points here to “paper arguments”.
The reality is that the Second Amendment is not a “paper argument” but a living breathing REALITY.
Since 1640 families here have been giving their kids to shoot target practice since age of 8.
My uncle gave his son a 22 at the age of 8 to target practice under supervision.
My uncle owned a gun store from 1948-1958-
It was legal then and it is still legal. The court cannot declare something illegal on paper when it was never challenged for 250 years nowhere by nobody.
This is another example of ex post facto “paper arguments” that have no basis in reality of the actual practice and exercise of the Second Amendment.
These are paper arguments are baselessly based upon imaginary non-historical false hypotheticals that have never occurred in reality nor were ever challenged nor declared illegal but actually a practiced right of the citizens for 250 years here.
These anti-Americans communists have to get out of their offices by somehow someway because the people will not stand for communism as we were told to fight against in
the 1950-60s here. Do they think we have no memories or brains-? These judges are idiots.
They never get out of their robes and go out and actually talk to people whose families have kept and borne arms for hundreds of years. They are trying to railroad the people while ATF, Cuomo, Obama and judges pontificate from their ivory towers.
Oh BTW schools had guns here by the door only 213 years ago - a practice to make schools SAFE! - Schools were GUN ZONES then.
“Children of the present day would be somewhat startled
to go to school attended by large dogs, to keep off the bears and other wild animals, to study all day by the crackle of the great fire and back logs, to hear the howling of wolves at rollcall, and see the teacher take from its resting place over the door, a trusty rifle to guard the way home. Such were the first schools in 1800.”
‘Periwinkle’, “The Sentinel”, Feb 21, 1874 [”Ticonderoga Sentinal”, Ticonderoga, NY]
BTW Webster defines “to keep” = “to have control of” = to do what you want to do [with it]”
It seems a safe bet that the 4 Court Marxists will side with the ATF. If the 4 “conservatives” rule differently, it might come down to a Roberts ruling once again. We might be able to finally determine whether the Chief Justice is indeed owned by Barack Obama.
And in full compliance with law, the transfer from Buyer to Uncle itself occurred with the full legal process of executing a transfer via FFL. It belonged to Buyer, by all legal views, until he transferred it via nontrivial means to Uncle.
ATF is attempting to force colloquial definitions to supplant legal definitions. This is in full accordance with their directive to act in full malicious obedience with the law: obey it _to_the_letter_ for the purpose of subverting it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. You are aware we’re talking about SCOTUS? The Robert’s Court?
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.