Admittedly I did not read the entire transcript ... but how long must someone own a purchased firearm before they can give it or sell it to someone else, privately, without being accused of having made a straw purchase?
There is no time limit. The issue is intent. I have bought guns only to decide relatively quickly that I did not like them and sold them. Nothing illegal about that, and even making a profit on it is irrelevant.
Abramski's case had very clear evidence that his intent all along was purchasing for another party with the other party's money. While I agree it should not be illegal to do that, he had to lie on the form to do it. The justices should have nullified the question on the form, instead of ruling on it in their judicial activism, which is normal for Kagan and Sotomayor.
I haven't had a chance to read the opinions myself, but just from the comments and analysis I've seen so far, I have no doubt that we have yet another situation where the conservatives follow the rule of law, and the liberals are writing NEW law based on "the sky is falling" emotions. A country cannot long survive when this is the "justice" that is dispensed.So Kennedy was the swing vote in the divided opinion. Here is the gist of the dissent:
"Under §922(a)(6), it is a crime to make a “false . . .
statement” to a licensed gun dealer about a “fact material
to the lawfulness of ” a firearms sale. Abramski made a
false statement when he claimed to be the gun’s “actual
transferee/buyer” as Form 4473 defined that term. But
that false statement was not “material to the lawfulness of
the sale” since the truth—that Abramski was buying the
gun for his uncle with his uncle’s money—would not have
made the sale unlawful. See Kungys v. United States, 485
U. S. 759, 775 (1988) (plurality opinion) (materiality is
determined by asking “what would have ensued from
official knowledge of the misrepresented fact”); accord id.,
at 787 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). Therefore,
Abramski’s conviction on this count cannot stand."
Having just finished the rest of the dissent, its quite clear how wrong the majority was. This should make us quite fearful of Kennedy, to say the least, he is not to be trusted any more that the other liberal judges sitting on the bench. In my humble opinion, we were lucky with the Heller and McDonald opinions as they were decided. We should not be so hopeful for a positive outcome to any further Second Amendment cases that might come before this same court.
...this was not the case this time...Abramski intended to buy another person a gun with the other person's money...clearly a straw purchase, not a gift...that dishonesty followed his trying to use an old police ID to get a discount...he was a scumbag who's made it tougher on a lot of honest gunowners...
...exactly so...stated in the cited SC PDF...he'd been terminated around 2 years prior...
...this was not the case this time...Abramski intended to buy another person a gun with the other person's money...clearly a straw purchase, not a gift...that dishonesty followed his trying to use an old police ID to get a discount...he was a scumbag who's made it tougher on a lot of honest gunowners...
"...it is a crime to make a “false . . .
statement” to a licensed gun dealer about a “fact material
to the lawfulness of ” a firearms sale... But
that false statement was not “material to the lawfulness of
the sale” since the truth—that Abramski was buying the
gun for his uncle with his uncle’s money—would not have
made the sale unlawful."
The uncle's residence is irrelevant to the laws in play at the counter, where the nephew made the purchase/accepted the transfer. The subsequent transfer from the nephew to the uncle was done legally using FFL's....in fact, the truth about 11a WOULD have made the sale unlawful...Abramski's uncle was not a resident of the state where the FFL was doing business... a fact seemingly missed by the dissenting judges...
The two laws?as well as ignoring the two laws the Court cited that demand truthful and complete answers on the forms required to purchase...
The subsequent owner after the initial transfer is not required to be kept in the records.924(a)(1) ...whoever—
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter...
...I don't like the 68 GCA...Brady, or anything else that restricts 2A...but it IS law and we've been living under it for a long time...when enough Americans decide they're going to get it repealed, and convince the Congress to do that...I'll be at the party...but it's wise to operate honestly within the laws as they're written now...
Again, to whom the nephew transferred the gun subsequent to the purchase from the FFL is not required to be kept in the records. 924(a)(1)makes it illegal to falsify the information to be kept in the records.... the " 924(a)(1) ...whoever—
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter..." does not pertain to the subsequent owner...the lies that the person who fills out the 4473 tells are the ones " ...required by this chapter to be kept..." as long as the FFL is in business...
This is where the libs on the court wished the laws that were written to accomplish something that the laws in and of themselves fail to do, and still fail to do even after they let the BATF add this stipulation. It fails a little less, but the same transaction would have been legal with minor, insignificant differences - like not accepting prepayment. A difference that is insignificant to the outcome of the transaction itself, and not in and of itself breaking any law, just what the libs on the court wish the law to accomplish....as to the uncle's residence...the lie that Abramski told in 11a circumvented the purpose of the 4473...and, since all the other answers were built on Abramski being the purchaser, they are worthless in determining if the actual buyer can legally purchase that gun from that dealer...which Alvarez, living in PA instead of VA, could not legally do...perfect example of how a straw purchase is made to get around the law...
...what we wish would be...
He was standing there at the counter. He was the actual buyer....seems we're going in circles...one more try then I'm done:
...he DID falsify the records that were required by law to be kept...he lied that he was the actual buyer...
he was the buyer at the counter. he answered truthfully about himselfmaking all the other answers false, too, since they didn't honestly answer the questions about the true buyer...
separate, not the issue at handhe went in there with a lie to scam a police discount from the dealer
I should have said that it would have been more obviously lawful, one less glitch to trip on."... It fails a little less, but the same transaction would have been legal with minor, insignificant differences - like not accepting prepayment..." is your acknowledgement that the transition, as done, with the facts of this case, was NOT legal...as the courts upheld...
...when one fills out ATF Form 4473 they are obligated to use the definition of terms that are defined by the ATF, when the terms are defined...