VCDL signs on to SCOTUS brief

TFred · Aug 12, 2013

peter nap said:
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.

2a4all said:
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

davidmcbeth · Aug 12, 2013

TFred said:
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.

TFred · Aug 12, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
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

davidmcbeth · Aug 12, 2013

TFred said:
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 !

peter nap · Aug 12, 2013

TFred said:
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.

TFred · Aug 12, 2013

peter nap said:
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.

And also very hot ammo for further changing the law to be much less ridiculous.

Half full.

TFred

KBCraig · Aug 12, 2013

TFred said:
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

I won't dive into whether ATF has legitimate authority to promulgate these rules, but based on things as they stand right now, it doesn't matter at what point the money actually changed hands. Under the status quo, it being a straw purchase depends entirely on whether it was intended to be the uncle's gun at the point of purchase.

If the nephew was at the gun show and called the uncle in a different state and said, "Hey, I just found a great deal on this gun you've been wanting!", and the uncle replied, "Can you pick that up for me? I'll pay you when I see you", then that would be the same kind of straw purchase as took place here.

Yes, it's a crime of mens rea.

TFred · Aug 12, 2013

KBCraig said:
I won't dive into whether ATF has legitimate authority to promulgate these rules, but based on things as they stand right now, it doesn't matter at what point the money actually changed hands. Under the status quo, it being a straw purchase depends entirely on whether it was intended to be the uncle's gun at the point of purchase.

If the nephew was at the gun show and called the uncle in a different state and said, "Hey, I just found a great deal on this gun you've been wanting!", and the uncle replied, "Can you pick that up for me? I'll pay you when I see you", then that would be the same kind of straw purchase as took place here.

Yes, it's a crime of mens rea.

I get the status quo, however, the point being made is: Show me the law. Show me where it is a crime.

That is what the BATF cannot do, and why this case exists.

TFred

JamesCanby · Aug 13, 2013

peter nap said:
Good point...but that could be even worse. Aren't vacancies coming up to be filled by this Administration?

Bite your tongue! I have never so fervently wished for continued good health and dedication to the position as I have for the currently sitting nine Supreme Court judges.

After January, 2017, God willing, my prayers may change...

papa bear · Aug 13, 2013

DarthBrute said:
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.

TFred said:
I get the status quo, however, the point being made is: Show me the law. Show me where it is a crime.

That is what the BATF cannot do, and why this case exists.

TFred

Thats kind kind of my problem with this. exactly what law was broken? as far as i can tell a legal person bought a gun, then transferred it through a FFLd

as far as i can see, the first party actually bought the gun. paid with his own money. he took it with him to PA, and then transfered it to his uncle. who then paid him for it. i still can't see a law broken here

peter nap · Aug 13, 2013

JamesCanby said:
Bite your tongue! I have never so fervently wished for continued good health and dedication to the position as I have for the currently sitting nine Supreme Court judges.

After January, 2017, God willing, my prayers may change...

Read em and weep...Just in from GOA:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Reid-Leahy move would gut the Second Amendment
in the eyes of the courts

Having failed to get gun control passed in the Senate, Democrats are now making a last ditch effort to reshape the Supreme Court.

Well, we hate to say it, but we predicted this would happen.
You remember when Harry Reid was threatening to destroy the Senate filibuster in January -- and later in July -- in order to approve Leftist Obama-supported nominees?

You remember, at the time, we said that, if Reid “pulled the trigger” on this so-called nuclear option to destroy the filibuster in some cases -- thus eliminating the need for Reid to garner 60 votes some of the time -- there would be no impediment to Reid doing anything he wanted with 50 votes (plus Biden) in other cases?

And you remember we said that it wouldn’t take long before Reid tried to limit the filibuster and use a mere 50 Democratic votes to approve other things as well -- like an anti-gun Supreme Court justice to replace Supreme Court “swing vote” Anthony Kennedy? The immediate ramification of such an appointment would be to overturn the Heller case (which held that the Second Amendment is an “individual right,” not just the right of a state to raise a militia).

Finally, you remember that Harry Reid said, at the time, that his shady precedent would just apply to Executive Branch nominees, not judges?

Well, it hasn’t taken long for his lie to be exposed.
The anti-gun Democratic Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), has just called for blowing up the Senate rules to approve judges with 50 votes. See Roll Call, “Leahy Eyes ‘Nuclear Option’ Threat to Confirm Judges,” (August 2, 2013).

Although Leahy doesn’t explicitly say so, this would eventually include Obama’s prospective anti-gun replacement to the 80-year-old Kennedy -- and would mean that the Second Amendment, in the eyes of the courts, would no longer exist.

Again, Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote on the 5-4 Heller decision. So, if he is replaced by an anti-gun Obama nominee, Heller is gone.

[/FONT]

davidmcbeth · Aug 14, 2013

I think that the intent is shown by the actions....so what did the defendant do?

1) bought a gun in his resident state

2) transported the gun to another state

3) transferred the gun to a ffl in that state

4) that's it

He had no control over what the ffl did with the gun afterwards.

A straw purchase, by the strictest standard, requires one to buy a gun and then deliver it to a non-ffl.

Zero chance of conviction. The ATF knows this, the prosecutor knows this, heck my momma knows this as well as my dog.

But the gov't/ATF has brought up stupid and retarded cases before ... this will just be another defeat and will go into their "absolute stupidity" file folders.

TFred · Aug 14, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
I think that the intent is shown by the actions....so what did the defendant do?

1) bought a gun in his resident state

2) transported the gun to another state

3) transferred the gun to a ffl in that state

4) that's it

He had no control over what the ffl did with the gun afterwards.

A straw purchase, by the strictest standard, requires one to buy a gun and then deliver it to a non-ffl.

Zero chance of conviction. The ATF knows this, the prosecutor knows this, heck my momma knows this as well as my dog.

But the gov't/ATF has brought up stupid and retarded cases before ... this will just be another defeat and will go into their "absolute stupidity" file folders.

Umm, except that this brief is for an appeal of an appeal. The guy has already been convicted, and that conviction has been upheld. If I understand it correctly, this subject brief is in support for asking the SCOTUS to hear the next appeal.

TFred

peter nap · Aug 14, 2013

TFred said:
Umm, except that this brief is for an appeal of an appeal. The guy has already been convicted, and that conviction has been upheld. If I understand it correctly, this subject brief is in support for asking the SCOTUS to hear the next appeal.

TFred

You beat me to it TFred.

David....do you ever....EVER.....read the subject matter?

The guy was arrested, tried and CONVICTED in a court of record. Unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear this and reverses the lower court.......he belongs to Big Bubba!

TFred · Aug 21, 2013

From today's VA-ALERT, another case of charging folks trying to get a LEO discount. Still not a case of an ineligible purchaser getting the gun. It appears that BATF is on a tear to beef up "enforcement" of their self-generated policy. I'm starting to suspect this is an Obama-generated mandate. Why else would we start seeing so many of these cases showing up?

I really hope the SCOTUS smacks them down hard.

TFred

*************************************************
5. Police officer, gun store owner charged with illegal purchases
*************************************************

Background checks are no guarantee that criminals won't still get guns - easily. Universal background checks won't make any difference to criminals, either.

Here we have a police officer who is allegedly involved in a straw purchase scheme.

From wdbj7.com: https://tinyurl.com/lobwes6

Police officer, gun store owner charged with illegal purchases
James Slate and David Haskins are charged with federal firearms violations
by David Seidel and Hollani Davis
July 26, 2013

ROANOKE, Va. - Federal investigators say that David Haskins and James Slate hatched a scheme to complete what are known as straw purchases from a competing gun store. Haskins owns Southern Gun in Bassett. Slate is a Rocky Mount police officer.

According to federal court records, Haskins gave money to Slate who would then use his law enforcement discount to buy a specialized gun from Town Police Supply in Collinsville. Town Police Supply, according to a search warrant affidavit, had exclusive rights to sell Smith and Wesson M&P 10 rifles to public safety officers and members of the military. Prosecutors allege Haskins then tried to resell the rifles online for several hundred dollars more than the purchase price. Such purchases are illegal, prosecutors allege, because federal firearms purchase forms require that the purchaser is the actual buyer of the firearm.

Haskins and Slate recruited other buyers as well. A total of 32 guns were seized according to a source with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Those buyers cooperated with the investigation and will not be charged.

Haskins was arrested July 12th. He is charged with eighteen counts of making false statements to a license firearms dealer in relation to the purchase of a firearm and one count of conspiracy to make straw purchases of firearms.

Slate turned himself in Friday and is charged with one count of conspiracy to make straw purchases of firearms.

Both Slate and Haskins face a maximum possible penalty of up to five years in prison on the conspiracy charge. Haskins faces an additional maximum possible penalty of up to ten years in prison on ten counts of making a false statement to a licensed firearms dealer and a maximum possible penalty of up to five years on the remaining eight counts of making false statements.

TFred · Jan 22, 2014

Oral arguments for Abramski v. United States were heard by the SCOTUS today.

Here's an analysis of the arguments.

The transcript is already up and the audio file should be posted next week.

From the analysis link above:

"Perhaps the low moment for [U.S. attorney] Palmore was when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., noted that the language in the law had been “fought over, tooth and nail” by the opposing sides in the gun control debate, and that the compromise which resulted simply had nothing to do with the idea of a “straw purchaser.” That, of course, was one of [the defendant's] attorney Dietz’s main talking points."

TFred

Thundar · Jan 23, 2014

peter nap said:
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,

I have to disagree with your analysis, respectfully.

What the cop did was not in accordance with BATFE's straw purchase theory. The law (Gun Control Act of 1968) only deals with the original purchaser. This is the core of the case. Read the description in SCOTUS BLOG, the BATFE straw purchase nonsense is toast.

As an FFL I have ordered 20 of the straw purchase posters from BATFE. After SCOTUS slams the door closed on BATFEs creative criminalization scheme, I will stencil "Over ruled by the Supreme Court" on each poster. I will then send the posters to anti groups such as MAIG and the Brady Center.

:banana::banana::banana:

Thundar

WalkingWolf · Jan 23, 2014

The whole thing is silly, in fact 4473 are silly, they do not stop gun crime. OTH there are almost no restrictions on antique firearms, yet how many are used in crime? We have idiots who run this country.

Primus · Jan 23, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
The whole thing is silly, in fact 4473 are silly, they do not stop gun crime. OTH there are almost no restrictions on antique firearms, yet how many are used in crime? We have idiots who run this country.

Lol drive by with black powder .58s

I can hear the 50cent and the KABOOM of the mini cannons now.

Some flint lock pistols for some local corner store robbery. Even if you miss (probably will) the boom will scare the crap out of them.

Im picturing bloods on one side and crips on the other side all lined up with their muskets. Be like a civil war reenactment. But with saggy pants. Maybe some Latin Kings on the flanks with bayonets.

Sounds like fun times for all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

WalkingWolf · Jan 23, 2014

Would you be willing to stand in front of one?

VCDL signs on to SCOTUS brief

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Banned

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member