Supreme Court: Law-Abiding Citizen Cannot Buy a Gun for Another Law-Abiding Citizen

Breibart ^ | 4/16/14 | AWR Hawkins,

[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.

[backwoods-engineer]

The ATF will drive MRAPs through this narrow decision, creating thousands of instant felons from honest Americans. They will pursue them with fanatical zeal.

Matt/Travis,

Exactly correct. At Backwoods Engineer, I lay out what becomes possible with this decision. In part:

With this ruling, Obama and the Left now have most of the pieces of an Erector set, from which to construct an unconstitutional machine for registration and confiscation of all legally-owned firearms in the United States. Here's the bill of materials: Part A: all new guns sold only through dealers, and recorded on Form 4473 (Gun Control Act of 1968). Part B: notify FBI before transfer of any gun at a dealer (1993 Brady 'instant background check'). Part C: no more gun transfers without a dealer (Abramski ruling, today). Part D: a future prohibition of all transfers of guns to non-LEOs, like the Hughes Amendment did with machine guns in 1986.

Just assemble and activate. Confiscate and exterminate. Insert Abramski, and turn key to start.

You doubt me? Let's break it down.

As of the Abramski ruling today, it becomes illegal to give a gun to someone without them taking possession by a transfer through a licensed dealer. The transfer of the gun to another person is half of a private sales transaction. The rest is just money. It is but a tiny, tiny step, measured in millimeters, for some lower court to cite Abramski and rule that all firearms that move in lawful commerce must be transferred via a gun store on a Form 4473.

Private sales of firearms in America: GONE. Because Abramski. Because if we don't, someone might give a gun to their uncle.

Even if a court doesn't rule that way, all it would take is for the ATF to write a "determination letter" to that effect, start enforcing it, and it's done. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool," as "The Forehead" Paul Begalla said. Obama's ATF has tried similar extralegal maneuvers before, like forcing a CLEO signoff even for a machine gun transfer to a trust.

Count on it: it WILL happen at some point. Abramski will be the justification for prohibiting ALL private transfers, with or without money changing hands. It is inevitable, the next logical step, in their statist minds. And they'll get all the cover they want from the media. "No more straw sales!," the newscrone will screech. "Gun show loophole? Supremes say NO!," the headlines will read.

Without the ability to legally transfer a gun to another person without the intervention of an FFL, all lawfully-owned guns will eventually be registered - a name, an address, the model and a serial number will be on a Form 4473, either at ATF HQ, or in some gun shop somewhere.

Next, the Feds will make the leap, not far from where we are now, that Form 4473's are in the same category of information as cell phone metadata, because Abramski. Because someone, somewhere, might possibly conspire to give their uncle a gun. Then, the NSA will start hoovering up 4473's, to stop them "terrists" and their uncles.

At that point, they'll have the locations of MILLIONS of 'lawfully'-owned arms. At that point, they can either come get them, or use the information as material for blackmail. Want to go work for FedGov? Or, a cooperating state like Kommiefornia? The computer will say: "Checking 4473s for Mr. Backwoods Engineer... FLAGGED!" Turn in all the serial numbers of your guns, you "terrist"! Because Abramski! If you don't, you might conspire to give one of them to your uncle!

But what about the lawfully-owned guns that don't move in commerce anymore? Suppose you buy, a few AR-15's, or even just a lower. But you want to go out and shoot it. But the Feds get a ruling or a law, or the ATF demands that all shooting ranges have to log the serial numbers of all arms coming in their door. Because Abramski, and someone might conspire to give a gun to their uncle at the range! Horrors!

Or, how about the future finding by this tyrannical government that getting a concealed carry license in your state qualifies you for a search of your property for guns not on a Form 4473! Because Abramski, those are contraband, because if those guns aren't registered with the Proper Authorities, you might give one to your uncle! Horror of horrors!

Watch for it. And remember, the worst of it all got started today, with the Abramski ruling.

[backwoods-engineer]

Then after gifting the firearm, transfer its ownership legally. At an FFL dealer if necessary.

Not only no, but HELL NO. You just gave away the right to privately transfer a firearm, and allowed them to create a de facto registration of all lawfully owned firearms.

I will not comply with this ruling.

[JSDude1]

Do it anyway, it’s freedom, however if this gun is used in a crime at some point: well I’d expect the book thrown at YOU.

[TexasGunLover]

Even if both parties (Parent and adult child) are law-abiding citizens?

You bet, this had no effect on private gun sales or gifts.

[TexasGunLover]

So, you are saying that I can Not sell my Guns to anyone. What I must give them away or turn them in????

As always, you cannot lie about it on the form and buy it specifically for the purpose of selling it to someone else, which is what this case was about.

[CodeToad]

This is restraint of trade, an unconstitutional act by the court.

[TexasGunLover]

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.

You are aware he lied on the form, correct? Do you propose that we simply ignore laws because we "feel" like it? That sounds like some liberals I know. The simple fact is, you cannot purchase a firearm on behalf of anyone specifically with the intent of buying it for them for them to reimburse you with that very intent.

If you don't like the law, change the law, but ignore laws is why conservatives don't have respect for liberals.

[DariusBane]

If I buy a gun, sign the personal use statement, then change my mind I am a felon. Stupid law. Stupid inflexibility.

If you believe that laws are sacred, or a sacred trust then you have not been paying attension to how laws are formed and enforced, or not enforced in this country.

The Government itself, the current administration is a scofflaw. Yet this same government wants to hold citizens to every jot and tiddle, when expedient. A pox on them all.

[poobear]

Isn’t that why they have legal “Transfers”?

[B4Ranch]

If I buy a gun, sign the personal use statement, then change my mind I am a felon.

No, you can always say that you later decided that your arthritis objected to the trigger pull so you decided to sell the gun to a friend, neighbor, acquaintance, ...........