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 ...
No, you didn’t...
The felony would be that your son would not learn how to use it...;-)
Another great ruling by that so called right wing majority the libs are always whining about. Speaking of straw men.
When will people realize that they will never get their grievances redressed in the US court system. The federal courts are here to assist and benefit the government, not the citizens.
I can understand the false statement and background check avoidance aspects but “trace firearms”??? Is Kagan documenting judicial notice that we have a defacto gun registry even though that’s prohibited by law (and the Constitution)?
Wonder how tough it is to remove a SC Justice from the bench? Is it an impeachment process, probably, or are charges levied by the people for Malfeasance in Office, or rulings that are easily seen to be totally against the Constitution, or traitorous activities possible? Are civil suits possible? I know that in general the Feds are immune in the performance of their duties but what about not performing their duties, think protection of borders? Or as I hear more and more would the people have no standing? In other words, who will judge the judges?
Yeah, I'd really like to know how the evidence was collected in this case.
This decision does NOT mean that firearm gifts are now illegal.
You are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm as a gift. You are not the actual buyer if you purchase a firearm at the behest of someone else.
I thought the background checks were destroyed after a certain amount of time. /sarc intended
This ruling has nothing to do with gifts. It has to do with buying a gun for someone who has or is giving you money to do so.
Good luck enforcing it. The Supreme Court is just as corrupted as the rest of our govt. They are irrelevant at this point. Who cares what they rule on? Their rulings are just as unconstitutional half the time as the laws passed by Congress.
‘I thought you already had to declare that you were not buying a firearm for someone else on the form you fill out at the gun store.’
None of my business but why would anyone buy a gun at a gunstore? Might as well hang a sign outside your door that I own Firearms, come and get me coppers!
If anyone thinks that the ATF or whoever does not keep the records, they are delusional.
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
I can't see how what he did is illegal.
That appears to be the gist of it. It seems if you want to gift a firearm you must give one you've owned a long while and originally bought for yourself. Then go out and replace it.
“Abramski then deposited the $400 check in his bank account, transferred the gun to Alvarez, and got back a receipt. Federal agents found that receipt while execut- ing a search warrant at Abramski’s home after he became a suspect in a different crime.”
Not true, read the instructions for answering question 11a here:
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
Because the relative wrote him a check for the gun so it wasn't a gift and question 11 should have been answered "No"
No. A gift is allowed per the instructions.
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.