Posted on 06/17/2014 5:36:00 AM PDT by rellimpank
In a rare victory for common sense in the gun debate, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the federal ban on "straw" purchases can be enforced even if the person who eventually gets the gun is legally allowed to have one. The 5-4 decision was written by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing vote, voted with the majority.
Kagan found that any other reading of the statute, which prevents someone from buying a gun for someone else, would gut the federal law. The case involved a Virginia man who bought a Glockhandgun for his uncle who lived in Pennsylvania. Bruce James Abramski Jr. assured the Virginia dealer that he was the actual buyer of the gun and then lied on a federal form. His uncle was legally allowed to buy a gun, but Abramski, a former police officer, thought he could get his uncle a better deal using his police discount.
Abramski argued that his false statement on the form was immaterial and that as long as the ultimate buyer was legally allowed to have a weapon, he had done no wrong. Kagan wrote that the government's system of background checks and record keeping wouldn't mean much if a buyer could get around them by having someone else make the purchase.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
--as usual the first few comments eviscerate both the SCOTUS decision and the J-S' position--
Maybe I’m missing something, but how is this a victory for common sense?
It’s only illegal if you tell someone. If this cop had bought the gun and “sold” it to his uncle, none of this would even be discussed.
Instead, we now have precedence upon which future anti-gun cases could be won.
Any time you read “common sense” from a news outlet, you can be assured it’s a liberal talking point.
understandably. So now, if you want your neighbor to pick up a gun for you, he can’t. But if he buys the gun and then later sells it to you it’s ok. Stupid in the extreme.
So a parent can’t buy a gun for Christmas for a son or daughter?
A husband can’t buy a gun for his wife?
uh hunh
bull sh8
If they mean “public employee unions” or the 1% I can see their point.
Like this is going to stop a person purchasing the firearm for a criminal.
It’s not.
The man’s crime was not telling the truth on a federal form, not selling or transferring a gun to someone that is not allowed to have one.
Nice of the article's author to let us know their bias at the very beginning.
So what happens if I buy the gun, take it to the range, decide I don't like it, and sell it to a third party?
So people exercising their Second Amendment rights are not part of “the public”? It sounds like these bozos may be doing too many recreational drugs. Millions more children have been murdered by “a woman’s right to choose” than have died because of the Second Amendment.
When an article starts out with the premise “In a rare victory for common sense in the gun debate, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the federal ban on “straw” purchases can be enforced even if the person who eventually gets the gun is legally allowed to have one.” You know it needs a hurl alert!
This is a rare victory for common sense in the gun debate eh? What gun debate? We were debating about which gun for which purpose? Maybe which gun to use to kill vermin of various sizes, which gun to use to protect one’s self? When did this debate occur?
I need a secret decoder ring power supply or something.
This decision is laying the groundwork for outlawing any sales of used guns between people.
If a licensed gun dealer is not involved in the transaction it could be viewed as a straw purchase. Eventually it will extend the time period from a few weeks to a few years and eventually to all sales of guns at any time.
The ATF will drive MRAPs through this narrow decision. They will data mine their records to create thousands of new instant felons from honest Americans.
Meanwhile, on the southern border, King Obama has ordered the Border Patrol to stand aside and allow an invasion of the USA.
Exactly, and that is exactly how the ATF will misuse this decision.
What is the status of a Gift of a gun from Parent to adult child?
Agreed and exactly my concern.
Firearm sales between individuals are no different than selling lawn maintenance equipment or auto parts. Private commerce is exactly that, and if the government starts trying to regulate firearm sales between private entities, you can bet they’re trying to make an end run around ALL private sales.
I think you are 100% correct in your analysis.
Don’t see how either of your good instances would be enforceable.
As far as I know its still legal for one to sell or gift to another, private deal, no record. Of course if the gun ends up involved in some illegal incident, they will come talking to YOU.
We can blame the stupid LEO for this nitpicky one.
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.