Posted on 06/17/2014 5:42:44 AM PDT by GailA
On June 16, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law-abiding citizen cannot buy a gun for another law-abiding citizen.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion and Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
This answers the purchase question. But it does not answer trust or wills.
One term in office,
Two terms in Jail!!!
Really? What if they said I couldn’t buy a book or newspaper for another person or that I could only buy books and magazines for myself in my home state?
SCOTUS supposedly ruled the 2A is a fundamental individual right, but it seems they are fine with just about whatever type of inane infringements legislators and regulators come up with. So what’s the point then.
So, you are saying that I can Not sell my Guns to anyone. What I must give them away or turn them in????
Yes. Define a gift. How long before you can resell the weapon and it becomes an illegal transfer? We give our liberty up to the ever changing interpretation of faceless officials in the DOJ and the courts. We give our freedom up to cops on the beat. We give up our freedoms to the latest mood of the mob.
This is serious felony level stuff left open to interpretation by those who wish to do us harm. So the ATF picks out somebody to test the boundary of what they can prosecute. It might be you.
Scalia’s dissent simply addressed that the law on this written by Congress was not written in a way to conclude that a law abiding citizen couldn’t buy a weapon for another law abiding citizen.
This was a 2d amendment case.
The very idea of ‘militia’ implies an investment in the group seeing that other members of the group have weapons.
Gifting firearms is still ok and legal.
The crux of this case it that it met the criteria for a straw purchase. The guy buying the weapon knew he was doing so for someone else, and money to effect the purchase was exchanged between the buyer and tge recipient.
The buyer then lied on the form in affirming that he was purchasing the gun for himself.
I see the SCOTUS verdict as tactical, not strategic (like the Heller win was).
Okay, Party A buys the gun for himself, drives home and decides, during the following week, to sell it to his next door neighbor. Now what?
Outlaws by definition don’t obey laws.
lamar and illegal invaders
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/15/Joe-Carr-Lamar-Alexander-Allowing-Illegal-Immigrants-to-Assault-U-S-Sovereignty
This came up yesterday. According to the directions on the disclosure form you sign, it is still considered a personal purchase if you are purchasing the gun as a gift. So purchases intended as gifts are OK.
Thats the problem with this: SCOTUS didnt set a timframe threshood.
So until they do (future case) or the straw purchase laws are rewritten to provide a better definition, think it ends up falling into the same category as Justice Frankfurters (I think it was him) criteria for pornography: we’ll know it when we see it.
Not a good answer, of course, but this Court has a pattern of making the public live under the problemmatic laws the officials they elect write (ex A: Obamacare). And this was a HORRIBLE case for the NRA to hang it’s hat on, given that it really was a straw purchase (just not one intended to putvthe weapon into the hands of a criminal.)
Good question. I imagine there are plenty of people who buy a firearm and after shooting it a couple of times decide they don't like the way it feels, shoots, etc. then decide to resell it fairly quickly after the original purchase.
Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that
a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
I don’t think they intend to PREVENT such transactions,
they just intend to use this to PROSECUTE their intended (politically based) targets.
Or you bring home the new purchase and the Wife has a cow because you have three others just like it? Better sell it quick before domestic tranquility becomes a thing of the past!
More like 90-10 split. We could only dream of 40%.
Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner) . You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the f irearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a f irearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the f irearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS- FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/b uyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18
Now, most every state, if not all, has a form or online way to transfer ownership of a firearm. How has the Supreme court ruling changed this? If you are the actual buyer, check off "Yes" on 11a on the 4473. Then after gifting the firearm, transfer its ownership legally. At an FFL dealer if necessary.
Had ENOUGH Yet ?
Raise your hand if you are surprised to find out that the SCOTUS is just as corrupt as Congress and the President.
The SCOTUS entered no mans land for me a few years ago when they ruled it was OK to take property through eminent domain from one private party and give it to another private party. OH and the individual mandate is a tax. I forgot about that one.
Bottom line is who cares what the Supreme Court says anymore. If you want to buy a gun for someone just do it. The law is unenforceable anyway. Its time for a lot of civil disobedience.
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.