Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, VA
    Posts
    242

    Angry Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

    from Fox News:

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law does not allow someone to buy a gun for someone else even if both are legally eligible to own firearms.

    The 5-4 ruling on so-called straw purchasing came down in the case of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., who bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Va., in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa.

    Federal officials brought charges against Abramski because he assured the Virginia dealer he was the actual buyer of the weapon, even though he had already agreed to buy the gun for his uncle.

    see the rest of the story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...purchaser-law/

  2. #2
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by hafnhaf View Post
    from Fox News:

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law does not allow someone to buy a gun for someone else even if both are legally eligible to own firearms.

    The 5-4 ruling on so-called straw purchasing came down in the case of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., who bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Va., in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa.

    Federal officials brought charges against Abramski because he assured the Virginia dealer he was the actual buyer of the weapon, even though he had already agreed to buy the gun for his uncle.

    see the rest of the story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...purchaser-law/
    LESSON LEARNED: Every firearm I purchase through a dealer will be purchased to be owned by me in perpetuity ... or until something, after the purchase, causes me to sell or give it to someone else, privately. My clear intent prior to and at the moment of purchase will be to own it forever.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    LESSON LEARNED: Every firearm I purchase through a dealer will be purchased to be owned by me in perpetuity ... or until something, after the purchase, causes me to sell or give it to someone else, privately. My clear intent prior to and at the moment of purchase will be to own it forever.
    LESSON: Gov't is more than willing to infringe upon our rights to KBA ... anytime, anyplace, any reason

    Its my property, I'll do what I want with it.

    The only reason why they require this is that the form is used as a secret registry ... otherwise, its a harmless lie .. harmless lies should not result in any punishment.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Looks like an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms to me.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Overarching Law: Constitution of the United States of America
    Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution..." - Article V, U.S. Constitution.

    Federal Law and State Law are co-equal and concurrent, but each are restricted to those areas clearly defined by the Constitution and as modified by the Amendments, specifically the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    The Supreme Court has reversed themselves on several occasions. Just because they make a ruling doesn't make their ruling Constitutional. The ONLY thing that makes any legislation, action, or decision Constitutional is whether or not it violates the Constitution. In order to make that determination, you have to ask a few simple questions:

    Does it fall within the limited scope of those few powers given to the feds? (Constitution and Tenth Amendment)

    Does it violate any rights expressly granted by our Constitution or its Amendments? (Constitution, Bill of Rights and all other Amendments)

    Does it deny or disparage other rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution but otherwise retained by the people? (Ninth Amendment)

    The Supreme Court's ruling on this issue violates all three.
    Last edited by since9; 06-16-2014 at 03:07 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Statist judges colluding to erode liberty.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Well, they ruled the law says, they didn't rule on it's constitutionality it seems.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Well, they ruled the law says, they didn't rule on it's constitutionality it seems.
    Yup, false statement. They cannot rule on a right ... well, any ruling is irrelevant anyway.

    But even here, they get it wrong.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    They cannot rule on a right ... well, any ruling is irrelevant anyway.
    They can and do...

  9. #9
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    They can and do...
    Doesn't mean it has any force of law regardless of what corrupt judges and police think. The Constitution is supreme over ALL laws and a ruling cannot be made that has any force of law which is contrary to the Constitution. The only reason it has force is because people allow it to which is to their shame and makes a mockery of the freedom men in times past fought and died for.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  10. #10
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    This is really bad news, but also easily gotten around.

    Do not declare prior to buying a firearm that you have any intention of giving or selling it to anyone else.

    "the "actual transferee/buyer" must disclose any intent to resell at the time of purchase"

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/justic...ase/index.html
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    I was under the impression that a purchase as a gift for a parent, child or spouse was exempt. Am I wrong? I don't recall where I got that info. I could have been told that, read it or made it up in my head, I don't really know.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Doesn't mean it has any force of law regardless of what corrupt judges and police think. The Constitution is supreme over ALL laws and a ruling cannot be made that has any force of law which is contrary to the Constitution. The only reason it has force is because people allow it to which is to their shame and makes a mockery of the freedom men in times past fought and died for.
    k, you go ahead and violate unconstitutional law that has been upheld by SCOTUS, see how far gets you.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    I was under the impression that a purchase as a gift for a parent, child or spouse was exempt. Am I wrong? I don't recall where I got that info. I could have been told that, read it or made it up in my head, I don't really know.

    You can read it on the very form you are signing, if you flip back to the instructions - and I think your memory invented the family limitation. Purchase as a "gift" means you are the purchaser. But it isn't a gift if they are covering the cost of the gun.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    4473 instructions

    Quote Originally Posted by Seigi View Post
    You can read it on the very form you are signing, if you flip back to the instructions - and I think your memory invented the family limitation. Purchase as a "gift" means you are the purchaser. But it isn't a gift if they are covering the cost of the gun.
    This is quite correct and if one reads the question it also provides the answer.
    "Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person."



    Here is a link to the form 4473 online; LINK.
    Page 4 contains the instructions for answering questiton 11a ,there are exceptions to buying a firearm as a gift. There is a specific example regarding the transfer of money to buy for someone else. I dont like it either but this ruling will set a precedent, but on the surface is only a "feel good" measure.


    I resolved this "declaration of intent" myself by hiring an estate attorney who devoloped a firearms trust for me. I was apprehensive about paying for the trust but after much research decided it worked for my situation. It cost me about $700.00 for a couple hours of work.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    k, you go ahead and violate unconstitutional law that has been upheld by SCOTUS, see how far gets you.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    I'm sure we are all violating perfectly constitutional laws every day too ... not an issue until you get caught.

  16. #16
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    195
    Here is what someone told me.. I'm not sure I agree with it...

    the second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms, but doesn't give us a right to buy/sell/give them, just to keep them and bear them ourselves...

    seems like twisting the intentions of the amendment, but thats what lawyers/judges love to do.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohnson44546 View Post
    Here is what someone told me.. I'm not sure I agree with it...

    the second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms, but doesn't give us a right to buy/sell/give them, just to keep them and bear them ourselves...

    seems like twisting the intentions of the amendment, but thats what lawyers/judges love to do.
    How can I keep or bear something that I'm not allowed to obtain? That is a catch 22 situation that is a defacto ban on the right and only an anti-2A person would think that it would hold water.

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    How can I keep or bear something that I'm not allowed to obtain? That is a catch 22 situation that is a defacto ban on the right and only an anti-2A person would think that it would hold water.
    Well in the PRK for many years it was illegal to grow, buy, or sell pot but you could still lawfully possess a small amount for ones personal use, well legal at the state level! Nor sure there was enough growing on the side of the road just waiting to be Found!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    "...the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is an infringement, violating the Second Amendment, and is therefore un-Constitutional.

    As per an earlier Supreme Court ruling, no citizen is bound to obey any law or edict that is un-Constitutional.

    Ergo, I have zero intention of following their un-Constitutional ruling.

    I will instead abide by my sworn oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," even when, if not especially when, the domestic enemies happen to be the governmental agencies U.S. citizens rely on to uphold the law.

    Because "an Air Force officer placed on the retired list is still an officer of the United States," I have no choice BUT to adhere to my oath of office.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, if more people who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution adhered to their oaths, our nation wouldn't be in the mess it is today.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Now the G wants to control what of our property we can and cannot sell or trade or give away. What's next? My old beat up 73 Cadillac? I can't fix her up and give her to my Grandson?

    The must inalienable right that we have is " The right to be left Alone" to be left alone in our pursuit to acquire property,and the liberty to do what we please with said property provided that we do not infringe upon anyone else in so doing.

    I would argue that no government can control what a citizen does with his or her personal property. Not without proper justified monetary rewards concerning said property.

    Control, control, control,---- The minute you enter into there ball game and purchase licenses and permits for a God given right, then you surrendered a small portion of that right, a few small portions here, a few there, and then hey they(rights) are all gone except for a few State privileges, They take you're money and you're rights for a "state Privilege" written down on a piece of paper ( permit,license).That means ****, it simply means you bought into the system, the system of control, the system that slowly takes away rights and replaces that right with a State privilege. I said it in the past and I will say it again'" They can have their privileges, I"ll take my Rights, my hard earn money, and all the property that my hard earned money can buy and I will do with it as I please.. You see I believe in Life, Liberty, and Property and the pursuit of Happiness.
    I do not believe in licenses, permits, or W2, or SSA or IRS , or DMV- The previous mentioned are Rights takers, and Wealth destroyers.

    My .02

    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 06-22-2014 at 02:54 AM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  21. #21
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    shall we clear the air about a word: gift.
    quote
    A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, from one person to another,made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money. unquote
    http://thelawdictionary.org/gift/

    ya'll got that concept down? made gratuitously with no consideration of blood or money...here we go...
    The case involved the conviction of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., of Rocky Mount, Virginia, a former police officer who was convicted of claiming falsely that he was the buyer of a Glock 19 handgun, when in fact he was buying it for his uncle, Angel Alvarez.

    After Alvarez sent Abramski a check for $400, Abramski went to a gun dealer in Collinsville, Virginia, who catered to police officers as customers. He filled out the government-required purchase form, marking “yes” to a question about whether he was the actual purchaser. After his conviction, he was given three years of probation.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/op...uyers-allowed/

    how on God's green earth does the uncle giving his nephew $400 to buy a gun meet anyone's criteria of a gift? the arrogance of this former LE who went to a FFL, who severely discounts firearm costs only to LEs, to get his uncle a 'great' deal on a Glock and got caught with the deceit and decided to push the lie to the SC.

    (liken the situation to a young adult standing outside the liquor store who hands money to either a stranger or relative asking them to purchase a pint for them and the clerk asks the buyer is this pint for you...oh ya, it is! it is still a bald face LIE)

    I am more concerned why firearm manufacturers, glock, FN, Sig,, feel the need to severely discount their firearms to only a select group of purchasers in the first place?

    how on God's green earth does fox's exploitative news report on the subject or the actual ruling truly infringe one iota on RBA? IMHO absolutely doesn't.

    does it mean you can not gift a firearm purchased from a FFL to someone ~ not in the least? what it does mean, is if you gift it, it must be a gift, pure and simple w/o strings (due consideration) attached. My darling bride still reminds me whenever i attempt to use 'her' gifted firearm given to her many years ago, that it is her's and i shouldn't get attached to it, even for a short period.

    what is unclear to me is who turned the the former LE in? the FFL? How did this come to the attention of ATF and become an item in the first place ? that should be your concern.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 06-22-2014 at 04:15 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    And to think, some of us older folks remember when they sold arms out of the sears catalog.

    Life was simple and I assure you I feared what my dad would do to me if I used that firearm he got me a lot more than I ever did what the law would do.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  23. #23
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    and houses...

    i was always confounded, w/o benefit of modern technology, how my parents found out about something i did across my small town, so i got hollared at and punishment dealt out, the very moment i walked in the house ~ sometimes didn't even have time to say 'howdy'... boom it would start ~ 'whats this i hear you did this or.....'

    and you know i never got hit for punishment ~ sat down in the middle of my belongings and told to not touch a thing, yep...then marveled my mother would walk in just as i was weakening and about to reach for something....just simply amazing...

    parents were caregivers, mentors, and parents back then...not sure what category they fall into now, schedulers for their off spring's activities...sigh!

    btw whats with this 'older folk' crap...lol

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 06-22-2014 at 09:15 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    And to think, some of us older folks remember when they sold arms out of the sears catalog.

    Life was simple and I assure you I feared what my dad would do to me if I used that firearm he got me a lot more than I ever did what the law would do.
    Then the superseded Sears catalog went to the outhouse to be read at leisure and recycled. I suspect that outhouses are pretty much universally prohibited (though I have thought of putting one over the access to my holding tank).

    Unfortunately I did not fear my father, even after him breaking boards beating my buttocks. Now, these many years later, may he RIP, I infinitely respect him, not least for what he accomplished beyond his origins. I have a box of sliderules that he used long after his office began the computer age (PG&E Cupertino, California office).
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    shall we clear the air about a word: gift.
    quote
    A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, from one person to another,made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money. unquote
    http://thelawdictionary.org/gift/

    ya'll got that concept down? made gratuitously with no consideration of blood or money...here we go...
    The case involved the conviction of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., of Rocky Mount, Virginia, a former police officer who was convicted of claiming falsely that he was the buyer of a Glock 19 handgun, when in fact he was buying it for his uncle, Angel Alvarez.

    After Alvarez sent Abramski a check for $400, Abramski went to a gun dealer in Collinsville, Virginia, who catered to police officers as customers. He filled out the government-required purchase form, marking “yes” to a question about whether he was the actual purchaser. After his conviction, he was given three years of probation.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/op...uyers-allowed/

    how on God's green earth does the uncle giving his nephew $400 to buy a gun meet anyone's criteria of a gift? the arrogance of this former LE who went to a FFL, who severely discounts firearm costs only to LEs, to get his uncle a 'great' deal on a Glock and got caught with the deceit and decided to push the lie to the SC.

    (liken the situation to a young adult standing outside the liquor store who hands money to either a stranger or relative asking them to purchase a pint for them and the clerk asks the buyer is this pint for you...oh ya, it is! it is still a bald face LIE)

    I am more concerned why firearm manufacturers, glock, FN, Sig,, feel the need to severely discount their firearms to only a select group of purchasers in the first place?

    how on God's green earth does fox's exploitative news report on the subject or the actual ruling truly infringe one iota on RBA? IMHO absolutely doesn't.

    does it mean you can not gift a firearm purchased from a FFL to someone ~ not in the least? what it does mean, is if you gift it, it must be a gift, pure and simple w/o strings (due consideration) attached. My darling bride still reminds me whenever i attempt to use 'her' gifted firearm given to her many years ago, that it is her's and i shouldn't get attached to it, even for a short period.

    what is unclear to me is who turned the the former LE in? the FFL? How did this come to the attention of ATF and become an item in the first place ? that should be your concern.

    ipse
    The issue isn't over the definition of gift. The issue is that the court allows that unconstitutional infringement.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

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
  •