• 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

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
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/opinion-analysis-no-stand-in-gun-buyers-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:

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
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.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
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:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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/opinion-analysis-no-stand-in-gun-buyers-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.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
The issue isn't over the definition of gift. The issue is that the court allows that unconstitutional infringement.

that is the contention from the cite and his charges on falsifying the 4473.

he tried to cheat the system to get a 'cheap' firearm for his uncle, he lied on the form, got investigated for bank robbery, left the firearm receipt on his counter, ATF/local prosecutor decided to run with it, got convicted, then decided to grasp at straws to exonerate himself by declaring his 4th amendment rights were violated with the discovery of the receipt and when that didn't work, then moved to another tactic...

and to think he got a suspended sentence...sigh
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1493

ipse
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The gripe of us here on this site is that the requirement is an infringement. That SCOTUS instead of saying so again sided with the state against individual liberty.
 

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
Oddly enough, I just can't get chuffed about this.

2a is about our right to KEEP and BEAR arms, not about our right to act as a middleman for someone who - for whatever reason - doesn't want to (or can't) go buy their own damned gun.

If ole Mr. Alavarez wants to exercise his 2a rights, perhaps he ought to be responsible and go purchase his gun.

Had this been about the purchaser wanting to purchase a firearm and then give it to someone, that would be one thing. But that wasn't it. He was, in essence, acting like a firearms DEALER - and I see no constitutional protection for him doing so. Nothing in the Constitution gives him some magical right to be a firearms dealer.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Oddly enough, I just can't get chuffed about this.

2a is about our right to KEEP and BEAR arms, not about our right to act as a middleman for someone who - for whatever reason - doesn't want to (or can't) go buy their own damned gun.

If ole Mr. Alavarez wants to exercise his 2a rights, perhaps he ought to be responsible and go purchase his gun.

Had this been about the purchaser wanting to purchase a firearm and then give it to someone, that would be one thing. But that wasn't it. He was, in essence, acting like a firearms DEALER - and I see no constitutional protection for him doing so. Nothing in the Constitution gives him some magical right to be a firearms dealer.

If they outlaw all middle men, it would be very difficult to get firearms.
 

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
If they outlaw all middle men, it would be very difficult to get firearms.

Very true. However, this is not about them outlawing middle men, this was about someone acting as one without going through the process that is required by law. Now one can argue whether the process "should" be in place or not, but that is not the argument HERE.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Very true. However, this is not about them outlawing middle men, this was about someone acting as one without going through the process that is required by law. Now one can argue whether the process "should" be in place or not, but that is not the argument HERE.

I only used the term middle man because you did.

I know what the form requires, I say it is an infringement and unconstitutional.

It is the argument here that is why it went to SCOTUS , the person broke what is unconstitutional requirement by the FEDs. The job of the courts is to toss the infringements out.

Golly I guess Rosa Parks should have been locked up for breaking the law.
 

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
I only used the term middle man because you did.

I know what the form requires, I say it is an infringement and unconstitutional.

It is the argument here that is why it went to SCOTUS , the person broke what is unconstitutional requirement by the FEDs. The job of the courts is to toss the infringements out.

Golly I guess Rosa Parks should have been locked up for breaking the law.

As solus pointed out - how many other arguments did he try first?

More importantly - thank you for bringing up Rosa Parks. Thing about what she did - she didn't CONFORM to an illegal demand. She refused to comply. To be able to compare her actions to those of the accused in this case - he would have had to gone into purchase the firearm and REFUSED to abide by the governmental overreach of requiring a form. By choosing to conform, he did in fact "move to the back of the bus" - and then when he got into trouble for riding the bus in the first place, he wants to claim government overreach. Doesn't work that way.

If you feel the form is an infringement and unconstitutional - why would you go along with a violation of your rights and fill it out?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
As solus pointed out - how many other arguments did he try first?

More importantly - thank you for bringing up Rosa Parks. Thing about what she did - she didn't CONFORM to an illegal demand. She refused to comply. To be able to compare her actions to those of the accused in this case - he would have had to gone into purchase the firearm and REFUSED to abide by the governmental overreach of requiring a form. By choosing to conform, he did in fact "move to the back of the bus" - and then when he got into trouble for riding the bus in the first place, he wants to claim government overreach. Doesn't work that way.

If you feel the form is an infringement and unconstitutional - why would you go along with a violation of your rights and fill it out?

LOL....the court didn't do its job at striking out an infringement and unconstitutional overreach.

Its not just how I feel. Their is no consitutional grant of power to the federal government to have those laws in place. If you think so Cite.

By your analogy she shouldn't have rode the bus because those rules were in place and she knew it, did she choose to conform by riding the bus? You don't get to nit pick and redraw the lines at what point means "conforming" and at what point it doesn't.

As to your last point lacks logic, it assumes because we follow the unconstitutional rules it means we don't really feel they are unconstitutional, I call Bullshite on that. I tell you why most people follow government rules they don't agree with it is because of the power of the government to imprison you, put you on trial (see how the judges aren't interested in the constitution or justice), beat you up and kill you.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The point is that some folks, gun dealers, to remain in business, will not sell unless the bogus form is completed. This is the problem with the "law." There is no harm done other than to a bureaucrats pride. SCOTUS again drives a nail into the coffin that will hold the BoR.
 

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
LOL....the court didn't do its job at striking out an infringement and unconstitutional overreach.

No - because at no time was the court actually presented with a challenge to the form ITSELF. Abramski did not challenge the form's constitutionality. The job of the Courts is not to "legislate" from the bench - which means the Court need and should rightly ONLY consider the questions presented. Perhaps you should read the case....http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

Its not just how I feel. Their is no consitutional grant of power to the federal government to have those laws in place. If you think so Cite.
I don't disagree with you. That was NOT the question before the court though. Therefore it was not a question that the court should first ask itself and then answer. (Note - reading the full opinion - you will find that the writer - Kagan, makes clear her view that such laws are ok. Personally, I think that is bullcrap. But I also don't want Courts reaching beyond issues to make judgements. I don't like it when Courts overreach on liberal causes, and to maintain consistency I shouldn't approve or encourage it just because it would be a "win" for my view.)

By your analogy she shouldn't have rode the bus because those rules were in place and she knew it, did she choose to conform by riding the bus? You don't get to nit pick and redraw the lines at what point means "conforming" and at what point it doesn't.

What Rosa Parks did was an act of civil disobedience. She CHALLENGED the rules, she didn't conform to them. She got on the bus and said "No - I won't move to the back". She didn't get on the bus, pretend to be white, ride up front, get busted, make multiple claims about why she sat up front and that it was irrelevant that her aunt was black - which is basically what Abramski did.

See, here is the thing. You either think something is wrong - whether constitutionally, ethically, morally, whatever, or you don't. If you believe it is wrong, you don't go do it first and then when you get into trouble for it - claim that you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions because you think the law was wrong. No, if you fundamentally have an issue with the law, you challenge it INSTEAD of conforming to it. You don't just whine about how "unfair" or "wrong" it is after you get into trouble over it.

I have not purchased a firearm in many years. I will tell you this - I don't agree with the required paperwork. So - if I want to go buy one, I will mount a legal challenge to the documentation - and that very likely will mean I have a long wait before I settle it and get to purchase the gun I wanted. So be it. You don't conform first and then whine. You run into a problem that affects you directly, you challenge it. That is what Rosa Parks did. It is NOT what Abramski did.....

As to your last point lacks logic, it assumes because we follow the unconstitutional rules it means we don't really feel they are unconstitutional, I call Bullshite on that. I tell you why most people follow government rules they don't agree with it is because of the power of the government to imprison you, put you on trial (see how the judges aren't interested in the constitution or justice), beat you up and kill you.

So we should not challenge our government because they are bigger than us? So why support 2a in the first place? It was designed to keep our government in check you know. A citizen has the right to self defense - and not just against a bad guy, but also an over-reaching, tyrannical government. If you feel like your last statement sounded - there seems to be a whole lot of people who are too scared of the government - which means the purpose of 2a has already failed in part. Given the support I see across this nation and even here - I don't think your right. Our forefathers pledged their treasure, their lives and their sacred honor to insure that we could live free. Have we (as a generational society) screwed that up? Yes, but not to the point where we can not recover it. That means fighting wrongs when we see them - not conforming and then hiding behind "it shouldn't matter" arguments. Challenge what you see as unconstitutional - else you choose not to fight for your freedom. It doesn't mean blood in the streets - it means doing exactly what many here do (and I suspect you do as well) - live free and challenge wrongs - instead of hiding behind them.

I think we agree in purpose - we disagree on the steps taken.
 

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
Which leads me to a question.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

I can see how asking questions the government has no right to ask is an infringement. No question about it. If I refuse to fill out the paperwork but the government will not allow me to purchase - that is an infringement!
But what about other infringements?

I struggle because I believe this - but then I war with myself over the mentally ill / mentally deranged, the convicted violent criminal, etc. If taken literally (and I believe in the "plain meaning" of interpretation), wouldn't the regulation and restriction of firearms to the above be unconstitutional?

On one hand, I totally see the need, but on the other - "Shall not be infringed" isn't exactly providing any kind of wiggle room. Which is good - except when its bad?

I am reminded of that old saying:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety"

Would it not - in some ways - be better to remove all restrictions on guns - knowing that those who "should not have them" will get them (they do anyway, so....) so that the average citizen has both liberty and the opportunity to secure his/her own safety? I believe so - though I am sure I will get blasted by someone saying we should let criminals get guns.....
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
No - because at no time was the court actually presented with a challenge to the form ITSELF. Abramski did not challenge the form's constitutionality. The job of the Courts is not to "legislate" from the bench - which means the Court need and should rightly ONLY consider the questions presented. Perhaps you should read the case....http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

The court doesn't have to be presented with a certain argument to strike the wrong. That isn't legislating from the bench. Yet this court has legislated from the bench since the beginning of it's existence. Hence misnomed "case law".


I don't disagree with you. That was NOT the question before the court though. Therefore it was not a question that the court should first ask itself and then answer. (Note - reading the full opinion - you will find that the writer - Kagan, makes clear her view that such laws are ok. Personally, I think that is bullcrap. But I also don't want Courts reaching beyond issues to make judgements. I don't like it when Courts overreach on liberal causes, and to maintain consistency I shouldn't approve or encourage it just because it would be a "win" for my view.)

Again that's the point they think its ok.

What Rosa Parks did was an act of civil disobedience. She CHALLENGED the rules, she didn't conform to them. She got on the bus and said "No - I won't move to the back". She didn't get on the bus, pretend to be white, ride up front, get busted, make multiple claims about why she sat up front and that it was irrelevant that her aunt was black - which is basically what Abramski did.

She got on the bus knowing what the rules were. I don't care if someone does it in an act of civil disobedience or not. Rules that are broken that shouldn't be there should be struck and a "not guilty" verdict should be in effect. The Feds as I pointed out have no constitutionality for the rules, zip, zero.

See, here is the thing. You either think something is wrong - whether constitutionally, ethically, morally, whatever, or you don't. If you believe it is wrong, you don't go do it first and then when you get into trouble for it - claim that you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions because you think the law was wrong. No, if you fundamentally have an issue with the law, you challenge it INSTEAD of conforming to it. You don't just whine about how "unfair" or "wrong" it is after you get into trouble over it.

That isn't how the founders thought about it. They stated many times unconsitutional laws are null and void. Many were smugglers ignoring the rules of their government. Not everybody can afford to challenge laws many simply ignore them.

I have not purchased a firearm in many years. I will tell you this - I don't agree with the required paperwork. So - if I want to go buy one, I will mount a legal challenge to the documentation - and that very likely will mean I have a long wait before I settle it and get to purchase the gun I wanted. So be it. You don't conform first and then whine. You run into a problem that affects you directly, you challenge it. That is what Rosa Parks did. It is NOT what Abramski did.....

So your ability to purchase firearms have been infringed.

Rosa Parks broke the law. The challenge came later after she broke the law.



So we should not challenge our government because they are bigger than us? So why support 2a in the first place? It was designed to keep our government in check you know. A citizen has the right to self defense - and not just against a bad guy, but also an over-reaching, tyrannical government. If you feel like your last statement sounded - there seems to be a whole lot of people who are too scared of the government - which means the purpose of 2a has already failed in part. Given the support I see across this nation and even here - I don't think your right. Our forefathers pledged their treasure, their lives and their sacred honor to insure that we could live free. Have we (as a generational society) screwed that up? Yes, but not to the point where we can not recover it. That means fighting wrongs when we see them - not conforming and then hiding behind "it shouldn't matter" arguments. Challenge what you see as unconstitutional - else you choose not to fight for your freedom. It doesn't mean blood in the streets - it means doing exactly what many here do (and I suspect you do as well) - live free and challenge wrongs - instead of hiding behind them.

Never did I even suggest we shouldn't challenge the government. Yes in many ways the 2A has failed. Look at the F'd up unconstitutional things like the rule you are saying challenge in court that shouldn't be there at all. If you don't think people don't challenge the state because of its "legalized" monopoly on violence, you need to broaden your mindset.

Yes I see a glimmer of hope in people starting to take a stand.

You keep using conforming wrong, and applying it to this argument and mine. It's not correct and bordering on dishonest.

You don't get to define the "proper" way of challenging laws. There is a reason we have things like the right to nullification. It means we get to simply break or ignore laws. From state nullification to juries who nullify laws broken by individuals.

I think we agree in purpose - we disagree on the steps taken.

To some degree. I personally don't condemn those who break unjust or unconstitutional rules.
 

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
I personally don't condemn those who break unjust or unconstitutional rules.

In general, I don't either. What I have an issue with in this case is not the unconstitutional rules - because those were not challenged anywhere IN the case. The reason I take issue with the case is because the buyer was perfectly fine with the "rules" until they bit him in the ass, and then in the end he bounced through multiple "reasons" why he should not be held to account to rules he followed (albeit dishonestly). Under the law, the decision was the correct one. Whether the law itself is constitutional is another matter - but one that NEVER came up. What he should have done is challenged whether or not such a form is legal - especially since an answer of "no" would infringe upon his right to gain access to the firearm. The mere fact he went through numerous excuses tells me this was never really about a constitutional question to start with. He fibbed, got busted, and tried to whine his way out of it. That isn't how our forefathers would have dealt with an unconstitutional or unlawful rule.

*Read the Declaration of Arms - they challenged the existing power structure while working within it. Did they pay illegal taxes in part while whining, or did they say "hey, this isn't right, we won't do it (dump tea here) and look at government in the face with a deadly earnest? I think we know the answer....*

Where we won't agree is whether Courts should be going outside the question before them. Doing so has created the problem of legislating form the Bench - and they shouldn't be doing it - regardless of whether its a "win" or a "loss" on a subject I care about. Whether they do it or not - we both know they do. Should they? Absolutely not. It is that action that has made them part legislature - which was never their constitutional purpose.

While I agree the form is a violation of the Constitution, I can see background checks as an infringement as well. At least, if one is denied the right to purchase. The same could be said for "may issue" states when it comes to permitting. A refusal to permit a person to carry - or even the requirement that they go to some "government approved" class to get such a permit - is an infringement.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
There are legal ramifications for lying on a Government form,document. Think W2.

My.02

Regards

CCJ
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Every federal court that hears a state level case is legislating from the bench. The federal courts must deny the feds a redress of wrongs at every opportunity. Simplicity itself: "This is a state matter, case dismissed."

The federal courts are co-conspirators in the infringement of states rights and the rights of the people. The only thing we need to know about the federal court system and their collusion with the federal government to infringe upon our rights is Terry v. Ohio and the Kelo Decision.
 
Top