SCOTUS Rules On Straw Purchases - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

SCOTUS Rules On Straw Purchases


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2014, 12:01 PM   #21
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
These are all lumping laws to make prosecutors jobs easy. Actual Intent is everything but now its overridden by Assumed Intent. A Grandma sending her grandson with a pistol permit his Grandpas Service 1911 in another state is now a felon along with her Grandkid. My buddy picking up a rifle for me at a gun show makes him and me felons. Registering, paying fees, being inconvenienced and passing it through ATF approved FFL hands makes the same thing legal? Isnt that mandatory weapons registration and Fettering?

If you get someone to buy you a weapon they know will be used to deny someone else their rights, then your intent matches the crime and you deserve the same punishment as the person that you bought it for.
A Grandma sending her grandson with a pistol permit his Grandpas Service 1911 in another state is now a felon along with her Grandkid.


This has noting to do with the Supreme Court case and a "Straw Purchase". For Grandma to stay out of prison she can follow a few simple rules/laws. Send the Firearm to an FFL in Grandson's state of residency. Have Grandson pick it up and fill out form 4473, did and done and Legal.

My buddy picking up a rifle for me at a gun show makes him and me felons.

If you gave him the Money up front, then Yes, you have just made a Straw purchase. If your buddy had no intention of keeping the firearm or gifting the firearm then yes, it is a Straw Purchase.

There is nothing New here, the Supreme Court did not change anything, they just agreed with the ATF's interpretation of a Straw, an interpretation they have been using and enforcing for years.

Here it is:

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms...


The highlighted portions of the ATF's interpretation is the gist of this SC ruling, as Abramski's Uncle was not a prohibited person. Abramski's claimed that because his Uncle was not a prohibited person, there could be no straw and the ATF's interpretation of the "intent" of the law was in error.

All the SC ruling does is keep things as they were and support the ATF's long standing interpretation of Straw.

Last edited by mseric; 06-17-2014 at 12:38 PM.
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 10:42 PM   #22
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

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
I have been doing some reading on this and this is not the case.


If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.

if Y then buys the gun, he is not the actual buyer. He is buying the gun as the agent of X, on his behalf; and X is legally the actual buyer. If Y claims on the 4473 that he is the actual buyer, he has lied and violated 18 USC 922(a)(6). His subsequently transferring the gun to X in full compliance with the law, does not erase his prior criminal act of lying on the 4473.
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 11:01 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Rocky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Red Deer,Alberta
Posts: 1,409
Liked 1397 Times on 730 Posts
Likes Given: 1932

Default

Seems to me that form trumped substance here. What was the actual crime committed here? It was a paper crime. Who was the victim hurt by this crime? There wasn't one.

Statists like to live by rules and forms.

Liberty requires citizens who think; any fool can live by rules and forms.
__________________
C.S.S.A.; N.F.A.; N.R.A. Life Member
Make the world a better place; have your liberal spayed or neutered.

Last edited by Rocky7; 06-17-2014 at 11:04 PM.
Rocky7 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 11:24 PM   #24
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
Seems to me that form trumped substance here. What was the actual crime committed here? It was a paper crime. Who was the victim hurt by this crime? There wasn't one.

Statists like to live by rules and forms.

Liberty requires citizens who think; any fool can live by rules and forms.
What happened was that the ATF changed the way it interpreted a Straw back in 1992. Prior to 1992, a Straw purchase was "Buying a firearm for a prohibited person". Back in 92 the ATF changed their interpretation to buying a firearm for another, prohibited person or not.

Abramski was a suspected Bank Robber, a search of his home yielded the Firearms receipt and the check/deposit from his Uncle. It also showed that the firearm was Legally transferred to his Uncle via an FFL.

As they could not pin the bank robbery on him they went after his "Straw" purchase.

Abramski claimed it was not a "Straw" because neither himself or his Uncle were Prohibited Persons, back in 1991 he would have been correct. This whole case hinges on whether the ATF's changing how they interpret the Law was legal and correct.

The SC ruled that although the Law is/was poorly written, the ATF's interpretation could be considered correct and Abramski, did indeed commit a felony Straw Purchase.

Nothing has changed with this ruling, nothing, everything is as it was since 1992. It is just now case law and the ATF cannot be challenged on how they interpret a Straw.
mseric is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 11:51 PM   #25
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 7,485
Liked 8220 Times on 4234 Posts
Likes Given: 9466

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
A Grandma sending her grandson with a pistol permit his Grandpas Service 1911 in another state is now a felon along with her Grandkid.


This has noting to do with the Supreme Court case and a "Straw Purchase". For Grandma to stay out of prison she can follow a few simple rules/laws. Send the Firearm to an FFL in Grandson's state of residency. Have Grandson pick it up and fill out form 4473, did and done and Legal.

My buddy picking up a rifle for me at a gun show makes him and me felons.

If you gave him the Money up front, then Yes, you have just made a Straw purchase. If your buddy had no intention of keeping the firearm or gifting the firearm then yes, it is a Straw Purchase.

There is nothing New here, the Supreme Court did not change anything, they just agreed with the ATF's interpretation of a Straw, an interpretation they have been using and enforcing for years.

Here it is:

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms...


The highlighted portions of the ATF's interpretation is the gist of this SC ruling, as Abramski's Uncle was not a prohibited person. Abramski's claimed that because his Uncle was not a prohibited person, there could be no straw and the ATF's interpretation of the "intent" of the law was in error.

All the SC ruling does is keep things as they were and support the ATF's long standing interpretation of Straw.
Im not saying SCOTUS changed anything Im just saying I disagree with any law designed to lump everyone into the same stew because of a few bad apples. The Straw purchaser laws insinuate that this makes these transaction less likely to happen but criminals dont care about having an FFL transfer the ownership to make it legal to own a weapon they are planning to break the law with.

They are taking the rights of responsible firearms owners away from the citizens and thats not useful or right.

We have laws already that prohibit willful participation in a crime that are relevant,
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:15 AM   #26
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
Im not saying SCOTUS changed anything Im just saying I disagree with any law designed to lump everyone into the same stew because of a few bad apples. The Straw purchaser laws insinuate that this makes these transaction less likely to happen but criminals dont care about having an FFL transfer the ownership to make it legal to own a weapon they are planning to break the law with.

They are taking the rights of responsible firearms owners away from the citizens and thats not useful or right.

We have laws already that prohibit willful participation in a crime that are relevant,
Whatever was taken away was taken away in 1968 with the Gun Control Act of 1968, not this SC ruling.
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 09:22 AM   #27
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 7,485
Liked 8220 Times on 4234 Posts
Likes Given: 9466

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
Whatever was taken away was taken away in 1968 with the Gun Control Act of 1968, not this SC ruling.
I understand that, I would have tried to stop its passing back then but I was only 6! I would someday like to see the supremes begin to overturn things that have no place in our laws like this but thats probably just a dream.
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 02:28 AM   #28
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,474
Liked 2293 Times on 1364 Posts
Likes Given: 1239

Default

The bottom line here is this is none of the governments business to begin with!
Unless they have proof someone is 'intentionally' purchasing guns to use to commit a crime it is a violation of our RTKABA'S!
__________________
An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!
JimRau is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 02:48 AM   #29
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau View Post
The bottom line here is this is none of the governments business to begin with!
Unless they have proof someone is 'intentionally' purchasing guns to use to commit a crime it is a violation of our RTKABA'S!
You may not like the Law, but it has been the law since 1968. The ATF interpretation of "Straw" was changed in 1992. Kinda late to get mad doncha think?
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 07:52 AM   #30
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7
Liked 22310 Times on 12476 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
Im not saying SCOTUS changed anything Im just saying I disagree with any law designed to lump everyone into the same stew because of a few bad apples. The Straw purchaser laws insinuate that this makes these transaction less likely to happen but criminals dont care about having an FFL transfer the ownership to make it legal to own a weapon they are planning to break the law with.

They are taking the rights of responsible firearms owners away from the citizens and thats not useful or right.

We have laws already that prohibit willful participation in a crime that are relevant,
i agree. the law about straw purchases was in all essence, (so it was said, FOOG) to restrict sales of guns to prohibited persons by having others purchase the firearms for them.

IMO, it should never be used to restrict the rights of a person from being able to gift or give another person a firearm as long as that person is legally able to own and possess a firearm.

personally, i would never buy a gun and give it to someone who wasn't legal to own or possess a firearm in the first place. the list of people i would buy a gun for and give it too is very, very small to begin with, such as my wife, father or my brother.
Axxe55 is offline  
kfox75 Likes 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



Newest Threads