TCC Discussions

www.yahoo.com

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.

The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.

Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount.

Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers — not purchasers — to run federal background checks on people buying guns.

Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.

The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration.

You need to be a member of The Constitutional Conservatives to add comments!

Join The Constitutional Conservatives

Email me when people reply –

Help Support TCC

This is a member-supported website. Your contribution is greatly appreciated!

Not receiving your emails from us? Internet security continues to tighten in today's hacker world.

Be sure to ADD us to your email provider contacts list. mail@theconstitutionalconservatives.com mail@912communique.com

Don't Forget The Tags

NOTE TO CONTRIBUTORS

Don't forget your tags.  Tags in an article are INCREDIBLY important!    They're the internets way of finding your post in a search.

Without tags - your article is INVISIBLE on the web!

Use keywords found within your post and/or use phrases which a person would enter *IF* they were searching your topic.

For examples click here.


Only search 912communique

Un-check to search the web

TCC Wonders.....

Random, thought-provoking topics.  Take your pick and give us your Conservative view.

  • 1st Amendment rights and gov't issued online ID's
  • The history of "Decoration Day"
  • May 19 is the 202nd anniversary of the 27th Amendment.  Are they earning their keep? 
  • Have any Summer rally plans?  Tell us about them.
  • GOP voted "no" to raise the minimum wage.  What's your take and why?
  • 4th Amendment and cell phones.  Should a Warrant be required?  The Supreme Court is debating now.
  • Did the Supreme court (in it's recent ruling) seal a "Oligarchy" future for the US? (or are we already there?)

 

All content is subject to TCC Guidelines ** TCC Disclaimer ** TCC Terms of Service