• 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.

Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

hafnhaf

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
230
Location
Williamsburg, VA
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/2014/06/16/supreme-court-rules-on-straw-purchaser-law/
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
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/2014/06/16/supreme-court-rules-on-straw-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.
 

davidmcbeth

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

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
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.
 

mustangkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
300
Location
, ,
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.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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
 

Seigi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
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.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
4473 instructions

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
 

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
"...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.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
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:
Top