Supreme Court deals rare blow to gun purchases
Source: Courier-Journal
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a rare blow to the gun lobby Monday by ruling that purchasers must report when they are buying firearms for other people.
The decision upheld two lower courts that had ruled against so-called "straw purchasers," even though the justices acknowledged that Congress left loopholes in gun control laws passed in the 1960s and 1990s.
For gun purchasers to be allowed to buy from licensed dealers without reporting the actual final owners of the firearms, the justices said, would make little sense.
The 5-4 ruling was wriitten by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent for the court's conservatives.
Read more: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2014/06/16/supreme-court-deals-rare-blow-to-gun-purchase/10574215/
yellerpup
(12,253 posts)Small victory. I'll take it.
Writing for the court in a 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the law helps keeps guns out of the hands of those not legally able to buy them, including those with mental illness or previous felony convictions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. from an NBC news article
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)And know exactly how each justice voted simply from the numbers. What a sham the Supreme Court is. Why do we even have it?
yellerpup
(12,253 posts)I figured it hadda be...
aggiesal
(8,923 posts)The RW noise machine is going to blast Kennedy, so this doesn't happen again.
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)calimary
(81,440 posts)samsingh
(17,600 posts)on firearms.
imagine what would happen if we had replaced scalia, Thomas, and their gang of thugs with real independent thoughtful judges. Fewer shootings I would think.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)All the 4473s I have filled out specify I cannot buy for others already. See line 11a
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)"I cannot buy for others" maybe that is what is being challenged in court. probably should read the whole thing and the decision
localroger
(3,629 posts)What happened was the existing law forbidding you to buy for others was challenged. SC upheld the law.
Crabby Appleton
(5,231 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)thought it might be something new. Damn strange thing to challenge in the first place - do you really want to be a plaintiff on record as saying you intend to buy guns for other people? What good reason could there be for that?
localroger
(3,629 posts)Discount was available to veterans (plaintiff) but not the real buyer (non-veteran). Which is, of course, just a dodge for challenging the banning of straw buys for other reasons, but they did paint up that turd so it looked like a blade of grass if not a flower.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)mopinko
(70,197 posts)of whether or not a law makes sense.
hope it catches on.
elleng
(131,074 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's a pain in the ass, as it is, and the door is pretty much wide open for miscreants.
I don't see any way to work it, other than registration for all. Expand NFA registry, and re-open it. Solves a lot of problems.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)"gun faction" was barely defeated this time, but their allegiance to the right-wing extremist gun lobby shows through clearly. Tony The Turd may miss an NRA paycheck because he couldn't keep all of his boys in line on this one.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Straw purchases would make background checks useless. This seems like an obvious decision.
calimary
(81,440 posts)louielouie
(42 posts)Just wondering.
smallcat88
(426 posts)that people who make straw purchases are suddenly going to start telling the truth. Sounds difficult to enforce and can guarantee there are already people coming up with ways to 'get around it'. Yes, finally a good ruling but don't think it goes far enough. This article didn't say anything about fines for breaking this law. Small victory but let's keep going . . .
barbtries
(28,810 posts)it would be hard to overstate how important it will be to elect another democrat to the presidency
Crabby Appleton
(5,231 posts)when buying from a licensed dealer, that court merely reaffirmed the legality of this existing law/
see question 11.a on Form 4473 and top of page 2
I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering yes to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Oral argument:
January 22, 2014
Court below:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
In the fall of 2009, Bruce Abramski purchased a handgun for his uncle and indicated on the required form that he was the actual buyer of the gun. Before Abramski made the purchase, the uncle sent Abramski a check to cover the cost of the gun. After buying the gun, Abramski transferred ownership of the firearm to his uncle at a local gun store in a different state. Both Abramski and his uncle are lawful gun owners. After the transfer, the government criminally prosecuted Abramski for making a false statement claiming he was the actual buyer of the gun. Abramski argued on appeal that the relevant provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 do not apply when the purchaser intends to resell the gun to another lawful purchaser. That argument was rejected by the Fourth Circuit, which held that the identity of the purchaser is always a fact material to the sale and that the gun dealer was required to record the identity of the intended owner. The United States argues for affirmation that the Gun Control Act prohibits Abramski from lying about the identity of the actual purchaser, which makes the sale illegal and undermines the purpose of the law. The Supreme Courts decision in this case will settle a circuit split regarding the lawfulness of this type of intermediary gun purchase. This decision will also establish whether an individual may ever buy a gun on behalf of another buyer.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties:
When a person buys a gun intending to later sell it to someone else, the government often prosecutes the initial buyer under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6) for making a false statement about the identity of the buyer that is "material to the lawfulness of the sale." These prosecutions rely on the court-created "straw purchaser" doctrine, a legal fiction that treats the ultimate recipient of a firearm as the "actual buyer," and the immediate purchaser as a mere "straw man."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1493
progressoid
(49,996 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)TygrBright
(20,763 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,598 posts)Supreme Court restricts gun buying
Upholds ban on purchases for another
June 17, 2014 12:00 AM
By Robert Barnes / The Washington Post
WASHINGTON A divided Supreme Court said Monday that the federal government may strictly enforce a law that prohibits straw purchases of guns intended for others, siding with gun control groups and the Obama administration.
The court by a 5-4 vote upheld the conviction of Bruce James Abramski Jr., a former police officer in Virginia, who bought a Glock handgun for his uncle in Easton, Pa., hoping to get a discount on the sale. Because both men were eligible to own guns, Mr. Abramski claimed that he had not run afoul of the law.
But Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the courts liberals plus Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the government had good reason to prevent straw purchasers and insist that the person who buys a gun be the weapons legitimate owner. Background checks of those buying guns keep them out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill, she said, and also allow law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes back to their purchaser.
Abramskis reading would undermine indeed, for all important purposes, would virtually repeal the gun laws core provision, Justice Kagan wrote. She added, Putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2014/06/17/Supreme-Court-restricts-gun-buying/stories/201406170079#ixzz34sWtkg1t