SCOTUS Rules On Straw Purchases
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > SCOTUS Rules On Straw Purchases

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2014, 04:02 PM   #1
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,372
Liked 2121 Times on 1147 Posts
Likes Given: 3192

Default SCOTUS Rules On Straw Purchases

The US Supreme Court has ruled on a case involving the "straw purchase" of a firearm. This is a win for the anti-gunners.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html
__________________
alsaqr is online now  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 06-16-2014, 04:36 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
rn-cindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Working off the rent...on RGs farm S/W OhiO
Posts: 1,156
Liked 1021 Times on 568 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

Can Holder still ship guns to the drug cartels in Mexico...? Or is that Illegal now..?

__________________

Don't follow me.....You won't make it.....

rn-cindy is offline  
7
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 09:34 PM   #3
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 948
Liked 754 Times on 388 Posts
Likes Given: 348

Default

It was a Straw purchase and the ruling is correct. He was paid before he purchased the gun.

The only reason this made it to the Supreme Court is that the "uncle" was not a prohibited person and the Courts needed to clarify the "reason" or "Intent" for the restrictions on a Straw Purchase.

They have spoken and IMO they are correct. A straw purchase is a Straw purchase whether the recipient of the firearm is a prohibited person or not.

If you are not the actual buyer then you are not the actual buyer, regardless who the firearms goes to.


BTW, the reason this all came to light is because Abramski was a suspected Bank Robber and during the execution of a search warrant they found the the check/deposit and the firearms receipt. They could not pin the Bank Robbery on him so they went after his Straw purchase.

__________________

Last edited by mseric; 06-16-2014 at 09:40 PM.
mseric is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 09:41 PM   #4
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
gr8oldguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 876
Liked 480 Times on 291 Posts
Likes Given: 158

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
It was a Straw purchase and the ruling is correct. He was paid before he purchased the gun.

The only reason this made it to the Supreme Court is that the "uncle" was not a prohibited person and the Courts needed to clarify the "reason" or "Intent" for the restrictions on a Straw Purchase.

They have spoken and IMO they are correct. A straw purchase is a Straw purchase whether the recipient of the firearm is a prohibited person or not.

If you are not the actual buyer then you are not the actual buyer, regardless who the firearms goes to.
^^^^^^ exactly
__________________

You don't have to remember the truth
NRA Member

gr8oldguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 10:17 PM   #5
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 5,466
Liked 6137 Times on 3041 Posts
Likes Given: 6518

Default

It is fettering none the less. They just upheld a concept not an actual deed.

__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 10:40 PM   #6
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sniper03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,220
Liked 2563 Times on 1251 Posts
Likes Given: 1287

Default

I agree! A Straw Purchase is a Straw Purchase. Most all of us know the law and have followed it for years! This is not a new issue. And if they needed it as a tool to issue some type of punishment on a felon who was skating on them on a felony charge GO FOR IT! And especially as Mseric mentioned in this case! Not much of an issue on my end! I do not think it was any benefit or a win for the anti-gunners at all. Even though I am sure the Idiots would like to think so and beat their drums as a victory when it in fact was not at all! It is just a continued clarification of the present law!

03

__________________

The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the Government!
*Patrick Henry

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy

Sniper03 is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 11:11 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,808
Liked 1109 Times on 657 Posts
Likes Given: 348

Default

I'm sure many will disagree with the decision but it sounds pretty clear cut in this case. The guy got a check with a note saying "Glock 19" and then 4 days later buys a Glock 19 for the guy who wrote him the check.

The gunshow loophole is not a loophole at all but if this went the other way I would call it a huge loophole to avoid NICS checks. I'm in the minority on this board but I actually think the NICS system is not bad.

__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
kfox75 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 11:18 PM   #8
Retired
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
danf_fl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LA (Lower Alabama),FL
Posts: 10,270
Liked 2882 Times on 1664 Posts
Likes Given: 1236

Default

Keep in mind that the deal involved different states and thus was an illegal transfer over state lines.

Had the firearm been purchased by the guy in VA and sent from seller directly to the guy in PA (through a PA FFL), there would not have been anything illegal.

If I decide to purchase Axxe a gun from some guy in CA, I would have the gun sent to an FFL in Axxe's state and have the seller address the package to Axxe at the FFL. And have the bill of sale in Axxe's name. Axxe would do the transfer paperwork in his name as the actual transferee. In this instance, Axxe is the one actually being the transferee. This is provided that I do not end up with the firearm in my possession. (Of course, I am too dern cheap to do such a thing.)

Now, if JonM came to Florida (as if), and I gave him a firearm (as if), that would be an illegal transfer of a firearm. JonM is not a resident of FL and such a transfer would have to take place through a FFL in WI.

If I go to WI with a firearm and want to give it to JonM (as if), we would have to do the transfer through a FFL in WI. JonM would fill out the paperwork as the transferee. If I gave it to JonM without a FFL involvement, I would be guilty of an illegal transfer.

https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

__________________

Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Life Member NRA
Life Member NAHC
Former President of the ECPT (Eifel Combat Pistol Team)

danf_fl is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 11:25 PM   #9
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
John_Deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,173
Liked 1606 Times on 1099 Posts
Likes Given: 560

Default

What gets me is they prosecute these two but no one prosecutes the thousands of people who are prohibited from buying a gun who try to buy a gun anyway. According to the NRA less than 100 people (I think 73) were prosecuted for trying to buy a gun.

__________________

Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety - Plato

John_Deer is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 11:41 PM   #10
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,592
Liked 5681 Times on 2968 Posts
Likes Given: 376

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danf_fl View Post
Keep in mind that the deal involved different states and thus was an illegal transfer over state lines.

Had the firearm been purchased by the guy in VA and sent from seller directly to the guy in PA (through a PA FFL), there would not have been anything illegal.

If I decide to purchase Axxe a gun from some guy in CA, I would have the gun sent to an FFL in Axxe's state and have the seller address the package to Axxe at the FFL. And have the bill of sale in Axxe's name. Axxe would do the transfer paperwork in his name as the actual transferee. In this instance, Axxe is the one actually being the transferee. This is provided that I do not end up with the firearm in my possession. (Of course, I am too dern cheap to do such a thing.)

Now, if JonM came to Florida (as if), and I gave him a firearm (as if), that would be an illegal transfer of a firearm. JonM is not a resident of FL and such a transfer would have to take place through a FFL in WI.

If I go to WI with a firearm and want to give it to JonM (as if), we would have to do the transfer through a FFL in WI. JonM would fill out the paperwork as the transferee. If I gave it to JonM without a FFL involvement, I would be guilty of an illegal transfer.

https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

this is correct. only reason to go to florida is fishing!!
__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
SCOTUS Rules On Domestic Violence Case alsaqr Legal and Activism 9 03-29-2014 02:33 PM
Straw Purchases, and the Grey Area clr8ter Legal and Activism 11 03-14-2013 01:05 PM
Okay, so straw purchases are illegal danf_fl Legal and Activism 25 03-12-2013 12:39 AM
SCOTUS Reins in FBI alsaqr Legal and Activism 10 03-08-2012 02:08 PM
"Straw"/gift purchases. TimL2952 General Handgun Discussion 53 07-26-2011 06:33 PM