• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

VCDL signs on to SCOTUS brief

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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/firearms/Abramski_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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

DarthBrute

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
20
Location
VA Beach
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.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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:

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
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!! :D
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
Your ( :lol: ) 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!! :uhoh:
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
"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:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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:

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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 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.
 
Top