Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: VCDL signs on to SCOTUS brief

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    VCDL signs on to SCOTUS brief

    This is from tonight's VCDL VA-ALERT, regarding a Virginia-based case of a straw purchase prosecution.

    Almost every point made by the brief has been made by myself and others on these forums. Let's hope the SCOTUS takes this case and smacks down the BATF silly.

    The link below is to the brief. It's long and lots of legal jargon, but some very good sound bites (see one of my favorites below after the VCDL post.) Worth the read.

    TFred

    ************************************************** ********************
    3. VCDL signs on to an Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of a Virginia gun owner
    ************************************************** ********************

    The BATFE (the agency that brought you "Fast and Furious") is once again overstepping their bounds. VCDL, in coordination with Congressman Steve Stockman, Gun Owners of America, and some other groups, is trying to stop them from doing so.

    Cliff's Notes on what happened: A person, **who could legally own a gun,** gave money to a second person, a police officer, who also could legally own a gun, to buy a gun since the police officer could get a nice discount on the purchase.

    Both were charged with participating in a "straw purchase." (The police officer is from Virginia.)

    Until now the BATFE's rule about "straw purchases" was only applied to someone buying a gun for a prohibited person. This sets a bad and unreasonable precedent.

    Supposedly the rationale was to keep guns out of the hands of "bad guys." But not so anymore. Just a matter of time before they consider a gift of a firearm a straw purchase.

    Here's the brief: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/fi...ski_Amicus.pdf
    One of the best sound bites from the brief:

    Further evidence of the ATF’s arbitrary and capricious use of the straw purchase doctrine is the agency’s infamous Operation Fast and Furious. In that operation, the ATF intentionally facilitated straw purchases for over 2,000 firearms. Unlike Abramski’s purchase which went to a law abiding citizen, the firearms acquired through ATF’s straw purchases went to Mexican cartel members, who obviously were ineligible to possess firearms and, in fact, used ATF’s guns to commit countless murders. To this day, none of the federal agents, including ATF personnel, who facilitated those unlawful (and ultimately tragic) straw purchases have been charged with any crime. Yet, Abramski has been prosecuted for helping his elderly, law abiding uncle obtain a firearm for self-defense.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    No intent to commit a crime in these instances should simply be......not a crime.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The guy bought a gun from a ffl. The guy transferred the gun to a ffl in another state. The ffl there then transferred the gun to the guy's uncle.

    Nothing wrong here. If he would have given it to his uncle then yes.

    One can buy a gun with the intention of "selling" it immediately afterwards. This is actually what occurred.

    The ATF/BATF playing this game yet again...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-12-2013 at 06:08 AM.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    A big thumbs up for their involvement. I just wish they would take that approach with Virginia cases where the accused is just as innocent...but there are fewer headlines.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DarthBrute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    VA Beach
    Posts
    20

    Re: VCDL signs on to SCOTUS brief

    I know the story. Said person was then turning around and selling those guns at a profit. Was apparently doing so so much that they were moving enough firearms that they should have needed a firearms dealer license. I gotta find the link to this.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthBrute View Post
    I know the story. Said person was then turning around and selling those guns at a profit. Was apparently doing so so much that they were moving enough firearms that they should have needed a firearms dealer license. I gotta find the link to this.
    "Cliff's Notes on what happened: A person, **who could legally own a gun,** gave money to a second person, a police officer, who also could legally own a gun, to buy a gun since the police officer could get a nice discount on the purchase."

    So, if true, is VCDL protesting the application of the "straw purchase" to this one instance? If true and frequent, does it rise to the level of "illegal sales"? by a non-FFL? Since the embarrassment of F&F, it would behoove the BATFE to crack down on this type of activity.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthBrute View Post
    I know the story. Said person was then turning around and selling those guns at a profit. Was apparently doing so so much that they were moving enough firearms that they should have needed a firearms dealer license. I gotta find the link to this.
    That was a different case.
    This one was just one gun that the cop bought for his uncle and legally transferred it through an FFL to him in another state.

    What the cop did was technically illegal. It is fine to buy a gun for yourself and later sell it, it's even fine to buy one with the idea of a future investment.

    It is NOT fine to go into it with the idea of buying it for someone else. At the time you sign the form, you have to intend to purchase it for you're own use. Ten seconds later you can change your mind but at the time you sign....it can't be for another adult.

    Stupid law, stupid interpretation but typical of the ATF.... but I wouldn't hold my breath about winning it either.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    ...It is NOT fine to go into it with the idea of buying it for someone else. At the time you sign the form, you have to intend to purchase it for you're own use.
    It's your.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    It's your.
    Depends...Could be youse, yorn, weuns or youns.

    I wasn't aware we needed secretarial assistance to post though. Gotta (AKA I have to check) the grammar police on that.
    I can understand your confusion since Ohioans don't talk good.
    There are places where you can ask questions:

    I'm from Ohio and now live in Texas. I always get a weird
    look from Southern people when I ask for a 'pop'. What?

    Apparently, Virginians say "y'all" for singular and "all y'all" for plural when referring to people in the direct person. For example, "Y'all take care now. I mean it, all y'all."

    I also say "you guys" ALL THE TIME (I spent 10 years in NJ), but not "yous guys" like my family from Philly does.

    We say soda, but sometimes we say "sodey pop" when we're talking about it in general, but when ordering, most people will say "I'll have a Mountain Dew" or "I'll have a Diet Coke." And when we order "tea," that's not hot tea, it's iced tea.

    If we're in the process of doing something or going somewhere, we say "fixin' to," as in "I'm fixin' ta go to the store, want anything?"

    We also say "over to," as in "I'm heading over to the library." I hear other regions say it differently.

    "Where you at?" is everywhere. It's literally the first thing everyone says when they answer the phone around here.

    Occassionally we'll say "down yonder," "britches"...my DH calls me "sugar britches," and everybody is "honey." My mom, a realtor, calls all her clients "honey." And almost everyone say's "ma'am" and "sir." Southern Hospitality.....love it!

    And my favorite..."Well Bless Your Heart!" It can mean everything from real sympathy, to mocking, to a polite F-you!
    Last edited by peter nap; 08-12-2013 at 11:36 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Depends...Could be youse, yorn, weuns or youns.

    I wasn't aware we needed secretarial assistance to post though. Gotta (AKA I have to check) the grammar police on that.
    I can understand your confusion since Ohioans don't talk good.
    There are places where you can ask questions:
    Don't forget ya'll.... this is the South after all!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Your ( ) too quick Peter... you edited and added the 'ya'll' before I hit reply!


    Northerners..... can't live with them, and can't live.... err... well, actually we could live without them!!

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    Don't forget ya'll.... this is the South after all!!
    That was included in the "How to speak correctly when going off topic in another state's forum" question/answer quote.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    "Cliff's Notes on what happened: A person, **who could legally own a gun,** gave money to a second person, a police officer, who also could legally own a gun, to buy a gun since the police officer could get a nice discount on the purchase."

    So, if true, is VCDL protesting the application of the "straw purchase" to this one instance? If true and frequent, does it rise to the level of "illegal sales"? by a non-FFL? Since the embarrassment of F&F, it would behoove the BATFE to crack down on this type of activity.
    It is very important to note that the VA-ALERT "Cliff's Notes" version of the story is incorrect. The "Statement of Facts" in the brief states that the uncle paid the nephew days later, after he had driven to Pennsylvania to transfer the gun. (Page 8 of the linked brief.)

    That is substantially different than "gave money to a second person ... to buy a gun".

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 08-12-2013 at 01:57 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    That was a different case.
    This one was just one gun that the cop bought for his uncle and legally transferred it through an FFL to him in another state.

    What the cop did was technically illegal. It is fine to buy a gun for yourself and later sell it, it's even fine to buy one with the idea of a future investment.

    It is NOT fine to go into it with the idea of buying it for someone else. At the time you sign the form, you have to intend to purchase it for you're own use. Ten seconds later you can change your mind but at the time you sign....it can't be for another adult.

    Stupid law, stupid interpretation but typical of the ATF.... but I wouldn't hold my breath about winning it either.
    Humbly suggest you read the linked brief in its entirety.

    About 2/3 of the brief is spent dispelling the long-held assumption that what your bolded quote says is true.

    The fact of the matter (according to the brief) is that BATF, with no statute or regulatory authority whatsoever, fabricated Form 4473, including the questions and directions regarding the final owner of the firearm, and quite literally "created law" on their own out of thin air, with no authority whatsoever. It is well covered in the brief.

    That is the main point of the brief, and in my opinion, the primary reason why this case was selected to push up to SCOTUS.

    TFred

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Humbly suggest you read the linked brief in its entirety.

    About 2/3 of the brief is spent dispelling the long-held assumption that what your bolded quote says is true.

    The fact of the matter (according to the brief) is that BATF, with no statute or regulatory authority whatsoever, fabricated Form 4473, including the questions and directions regarding the final owner of the firearm, and quite literally "created law" on their own out of thin air, with no authority whatsoever. It is well covered in the brief.

    That is the main point of the brief, and in my opinion, the primary reason why this case was selected to push up to SCOTUS.

    TFred
    Therefore would apply to more than this singular transaction.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Therefore would apply to more than this singular transaction.
    If I'm reading it correctly, then absolutely.

    If by some miracle, SCOTUS decides to take this case, and rules correctly on the merits.... you think there was a scramble for enhanced background checks before... to have the straw-purchase question invalidated from Form 4473 would unleash a firestorm of insanity from the gun-grabbers.

    TFred

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Humbly suggest you read the linked brief in its entirety.

    About 2/3 of the brief is spent dispelling the long-held assumption that what your bolded quote says is true.

    The fact of the matter (according to the brief) is that BATF, with no statute or regulatory authority whatsoever, fabricated Form 4473, including the questions and directions regarding the final owner of the firearm, and quite literally "created law" on their own out of thin air, with no authority whatsoever. It is well covered in the brief.

    That is the main point of the brief, and in my opinion, the primary reason why this case was selected to push up to SCOTUS.

    TFred
    I read the brief TFred but it's just an argument. Arguments are like rear ends, everyone has one.

    The fact is that the courts have recognized the regulatory authority as enforceable as law within certain parameters, all along. That authority gets complicated and is a combination of several agencies including the IRS.

    Just the fact that the man has been convicted is proof that the lower courts still hold with that theory.

    Don't get me wrong. I hope this is reversed but just think of the fight Thompson Center had to put up to overturn the regulatory interpretation that said just having the parts (Shoulder stock) in the same building, to convert a handgun to an SBR...was illegal.

    This is not going to be an easy win I don't think....especially under this Administration.

    So I stand by my statement that as of right now, it meets my defination of illegal.

    Three elements:

    At this minute
    Can I be arrested for doing it? Yes!
    Can I be convicted of it? Yes!
    Can I be sentenced to a long stay in an iron box with a 7 foot homosexual named Big Bubba? Yes!

    If and when the Supreme Court overturns his conviction....we can say.... NO to all three elements and it won't be illegal.
    Last edited by peter nap; 08-12-2013 at 03:40 PM.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    --snipped--

    This is not going to be an easy win I don't think....especially under this Administration.
    What leads you to believe that this will be heard that soon?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    What leads you to believe that this will be heard that soon?
    Good point...but that could be even worse. Aren't vacancies coming up to be filled by this Administration?
    Last edited by peter nap; 08-12-2013 at 03:44 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Humbly suggest you read the linked brief in its entirety.

    About 2/3 of the brief is spent dispelling the long-held assumption that what your bolded quote says is true.

    The fact of the matter (according to the brief) is that BATF, with no statute or regulatory authority whatsoever, fabricated Form 4473, including the questions and directions regarding the final owner of the firearm, and quite literally "created law" on their own out of thin air, with no authority whatsoever. It is well covered in the brief.

    That is the main point of the brief, and in my opinion, the primary reason why this case was selected to push up to SCOTUS.

    TFred
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I read the brief TFred but it's just an argument. Arguments are like rear ends, everyone has one.

    The fact is that the courts have recognized the regulatory authority as enforceable as law within certain parameters, all along. That authority gets complicated and is a combination of several agencies including the IRS.

    Just the fact that the man has been convicted is proof that the lower courts still hold with that theory.

    Don't get me wrong. I hope this is reversed but just think of the fight Thompson Center had to put up to overturn the regulatory interpretation that said just having the parts (Shoulder stock) in the same building, to convert a handgun to an SBR...was illegal.

    This is not going to be an easy win I don't think....especially under this Administration.

    So I stand by my statement that as of right now, it meets my defination of illegal.

    Three elements:

    At this minute
    Can I be arrested for doing it? Yes!
    Can I be convicted of it? Yes!
    Can I be sentenced to a long stay in an iron box with a 7 foot homosexual named Big Bubba? Yes!

    If and when the Supreme Court overturns his conviction....we can say.... NO and it won't be illegal.
    Got to agree with Nap here.

    Laws written by Congress are general in their statements as in "...as the Secretary may direct..." or "...as determined by the Attorney General..." because it is recognized that the enforcing agency needs flexibility in implementing the necessary policies and procedures to carry out the intent of Congress. Simply pointing out that the statute doesn't specifically say such and such doesn't necessarily make a case for an invalid law.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  21. #21
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I read the brief TFred but it's just an argument. Arguments are like rear ends, everyone has one.

    The fact is that the courts have recognized the regulatory authority as enforceable as law within certain parameters, all along. That authority gets complicated and is a combination of several agencies including the IRS.

    Just the fact that the man has been convicted is proof that the lower courts still hold with that theory.

    Don't get me wrong. I hope this is reversed but just think of the fight Thompson Center had to put up to overturn the regulatory interpretation that said just having the parts (Shoulder stock) in the same building, to convert a handgun to an SBR...was illegal.

    This is not going to be an easy win I don't think....especially under this Administration.

    So I stand by my statement that as of right now, it meets my defination of illegal.

    Three elements:

    At this minute
    Can I be arrested for doing it? Yes!
    Can I be convicted of it? Yes!
    Can I be sentenced to a long stay in an iron box with a 7 foot homosexual named Big Bubba? Yes!

    If and when the Supreme Court overturns his conviction....we can say.... NO to all three elements and it won't be illegal.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    Got to agree with Nap here.

    Laws written by Congress are general in their statements as in "...as the Secretary may direct..." or "...as determined by the Attorney General..." because it is recognized that the enforcing agency needs flexibility in implementing the necessary policies and procedures to carry out the intent of Congress. Simply pointing out that the statute doesn't specifically say such and such doesn't necessarily make a case for an invalid law.
    All good points, except the argument in this brief specifically searched out and documented the fact that the authority is not found in either statute OR regulations. This is not a "business as usual, and we don't like it" argument, it's a "they have no authority to do this, and you need to stop it" argument.

    As noted, only time will tell if they do their job.

    TFred

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    All good points, except the argument in this brief specifically searched out and documented the fact that the authority is not found in either statute OR regulations. This is not a "business as usual, and we don't like it" argument, it's a "they have no authority to do this, and you need to stop it" argument.

    As noted, only time will tell if they do their job.

    TFred
    TFred gets it; maybe he can be director of the ATF.

  23. #23
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    TFred gets it; maybe he can be director of the ATF.
    Ha ha... well.... as PeterNap observed... I may "get" what the plaintiffs are arguing... but that's still a long way from what the judges will decide.

    It's a start though, you gotta litigate to win.

    TFred

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Ha ha... well.... as PeterNap observed... I may "get" what the plaintiffs are arguing... but that's still a long way from what the judges will decide.

    It's a start though, you gotta litigate to win.

    TFred
    Judges are not all freaked out brainwashed folks ... I'll assume on this one, since it is a slam dunk, that the case will be resolved favorably for the defendant.

    Maybe TFred for President !
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-12-2013 at 06:10 PM.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Ha ha... well.... as PeterNap observed... I may "get" what the plaintiffs are arguing... but that's still a long way from what the judges will decide.

    It's a start though, you gotta litigate to win.

    TFred
    There is a certain amount of danger in these cases also TFred.

    This was a VERY iffy case and in some districts would have been tossed out, but, if he loses on this level it will become the law making it possible to dampen gifts to children and spouses.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •