Skip to comments.
Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' gun law
tulsaworld.com ^
| 06/16/2014
| AP
Posted on 06/16/2014 9:51:05 AM PDT by aimhigh
A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.
The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; scotus; straw; strawpurchases; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-115 last
To: Lurking Libertarian
Why not say, I bought it didn’t like it and sold it to my uncle.
To: dynoman
He was not giving the gun as a gift.
102
posted on
06/16/2014 2:50:15 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: TexasGunLover
Looks like the first purchaser transferred it to another legal buyer, who paid for it, so what is the problem? The law was written to stop the transfer of weapons to felons, not the case here. Worst thing I can see is the first buyer used a police discount to save his relative a few bucks.
Just another way to tighten the screws on gun owners. Personally I see no reason to purchase a gun from a dealer in the first place.
To: DainBramage
Why not say, I bought it didnt like it and sold it to my uncle.In this case, the uncle had paid him for it before he bought it (and listed on the check what it was for).
To: aimhigh
More proof that the SCOTUS still hasn’t found their copy of the Constitution...
105
posted on
06/16/2014 3:05:21 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
To: editor-surveyor
Yeah....
Don’t care.
The law itself is illegal. No mention of that in all of this...
106
posted on
06/16/2014 3:12:14 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
To: Lurking Libertarian
To: Dead Corpse
I don’t disagree with you, but we already knew that the court did.
108
posted on
06/16/2014 7:51:08 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: GraceG
Roberts ruled in favor of gun transfer. Kennedy swung with the liberals.
109
posted on
06/16/2014 9:35:26 PM PDT
by
entropy12
(Obummer = worst president ever, thanks to voters who abstained on election day!)
To: mykroar
lol like after a computer crash ala Lois Lerner?
110
posted on
06/16/2014 9:38:02 PM PDT
by
entropy12
(Obummer = worst president ever, thanks to voters who abstained on election day!)
To: F15Eagle
And so the 2008 and 2012 election consequences continue. You ain't seen nothing yet. If Obummer gets to appoint one more justice, all those who abstained in elections will be responsible for complete reversal of any conservative decisions coming out of SCOTUS. Indeed elections have consequences.
111
posted on
06/16/2014 9:42:06 PM PDT
by
entropy12
(Obummer = worst president ever, thanks to voters who abstained on election day!)
To: Dead Corpse
Obummer gave the SCOTUS a brand new copy of his own constitution. Remember he was teaching constitution in Univ of Chicago.
112
posted on
06/16/2014 9:45:39 PM PDT
by
entropy12
(Obummer = worst president ever, thanks to voters who abstained on election day!)
To: DJ Taylor
"This is just more proof we have our Second Amendment rights only as long as five of nine Supreme Court Justices agree we have these rights." I think President Andrew Jackson figured this one out a LONG time ago. I think his statement was to the effect "Supreme Court Chief Justice .......... has made his decision, now let him enforce it".
113
posted on
06/17/2014 5:36:12 AM PDT
by
Wonder Warthog
(Newly fledged NRA Life Member (after many years as an "annual renewal" sort))
To: thackney
How about lying to the gun store to get your uncle the police discount?
That was the root of the problem.
If the actual buyer were actually a cop, he could buy his own gun with the discount.
Or, if the actual buyer did not want to defraud the gun store for a police discount, he could pay retail like a normal person.
But he wanted a benefit to which he was not entitled and his nephew was willing to lie to help him get it.
To: publiusF27
his nephew was willing to lie commit a felony to help him get it.
115
posted on
06/20/2014 4:50:45 AM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-115 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson