2013 Supreme Court Term

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,263
Likes
962
Location
SE NH, ex-MA
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,263
Likes
962
Location
SE NH, ex-MA
http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/40-hill

First bullet point towards the bottom is the DC decision.
Got it - You meant DC as the District Court, not District of Columbia. In hindsight, it makes sense, but it threw me off the first time - I first thought it was a reference to the Heller case.

Read it - thank you for pointing it out to me... not that reading it made me happy or proud.

Once more, my thanks to all Comm2A members for fighting the good fight.
 

soloman02

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,172
Likes
3,042
Location
NH
Why would SCOTUS leave the circuit split intact by denying cert to Drake? Do they think the cases from the 9th circuit are better?
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
77   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,379
Likes
2,857
Location
Stoughton
Unfortunately there is nothing in today's orders giving a reason for the denial of cert. Which is not unusual, but is disappointing nonetheless.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,372
Likes
698
Location
Needham, MA
Kwong v DiBlasio (13-993), the NYC handgun in the home permit fees lawsuit, is scheduled to be heard at conference tomorrow. There should be news Monday as to whether the court takes the case, denies it, or holds to further consider.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,372
Likes
698
Location
Needham, MA
Kwong v DiBlasio (13-993), the NYC handgun in the home permit fees lawsuit, is scheduled to be heard at conference tomorrow. There should be news Monday as to whether the court takes the case, denies it, or holds to further consider.
Denied. I think that's it until at least next term.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
 
Rating - 100%
106   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
7,593
Likes
1,986
Location
Vermont
Concur, bullshit. So something that I've pondered about, without actually doing, is how do you legally gift a gun to someone, especially when buying it from a dealer, and in light of this ruling?
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,884
Likes
2,518
Hopefully the NRA can get an exception that resets the clock if a second BG check is made. Neither opinion or dissent delved deep into the position that background checks reset the clock. This effectively took the approach of all or nothing on 922(a)(6). This shows how stupid our background check system is here.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
68
Likes
17
Concur, bullshit. So something that I've pondered about, without actually doing, is how do you legally gift a gun to someone, especially when buying it from a dealer, and in light of this ruling?
If you read Scalia's dissent, he gives citations addressing this: As long as he doesn't give you money in advance, you are the "true purchaser". Meaning, you can buy a gun intending it as a gift (or even intending to sell it on) as long as you're using your own money.
 

soloman02

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,172
Likes
3,042
Location
NH
Concur, bullshit. So something that I've pondered about, without actually doing, is how do you legally gift a gun to someone, especially when buying it from a dealer, and in light of this ruling?
IIRC gifting is explicitly exempted in 922. But I don't fully remember the language.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,683
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
This is the very definition of an innocent man being convicted so that the guilty might not go free.

That was literally their justification here.

Keep it classy progressives...
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,842
Likes
3,500
It was a pretty weak case for the good guys IMHO. I mean the dude actually wrote his nephew a check with "Glock 19 handgun" in the memo line prior to the nephew buying it. [rolleyes] When dumb laws and dumb people collide, the dumb law usually wins.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,884
Likes
2,518
This is the very definition of an innocent man being convicted so that the guilty might not go free.

That was literally their justification here.

Keep it classy progressives...
That was the interesting element of both decision and dissent. In the circuits on the losing end of this split, this prosecution was barred on the logic that the new background check reset the clock on the original purpose of the statue, that being a background check. While this was mentioned in questioning in the orals, it barely found it's way into the written decision/dissent. They took this all or nothing approach focusing solely on the statute and not on the acceptable purpose of the statute, nor breaking it out from other straw purchases. In Scalia's dissent, he basically would allow straw purchases in states where private party sales were allowed. The libs now ban all straw purchases on the theory that there is no distinction in the statute between those that are bad (ie; buys for bad guys) and those that are covered under this FFL regime that are otherwise harmless (ie; Abramski's set of facts).

This is the world of trying to protect a right when the justices you have to win over are predisposed to not read into the law something that wasn't there. If they were, they would have read into it the exception of the "reset" but since that is not there, it's all straw purchases are bad v. straws are legal. This is why criminal cases yield bad law. You can't pick your set of facts.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,762
Likes
31,710
It was a pretty weak case for the good guys IMHO. I mean the dude actually wrote his nephew a check with "Glock 19 handgun" in the memo line prior to the nephew buying it. [rolleyes] When dumb laws and dumb people collide, the dumb law usually wins.
I wouldn't say its that weak, given the fact that its pretty obvious this law is a piece of shit and is one of the most poorly written federal gun laws in existence- it's pretty obvious that a law which was intended to trap criminals also traps a lot of other people in rather innocuous circumstances.

How the court could NOT see a problem with this law evades me.

ETA: I do see what you mean by the whole dumb people vs dumb law... and the problem is for this type of law, the only people that are typically going to get caught on the wrong end of it are really stupid- think about how dumb someone has to be to actually get caught strawing a handgun. (Thousands of people do it in the US constantly without realizing they're breaking the law and never get caught. )

-Mike
 
Last edited:

Ben Cartwright SASS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,965
Likes
667
Location
Massachusetts
My reading of it is that it is a straw purchase if you buy a gun knowing that you are not the final buyer, in this case the guy bought it for his uncle.

What about Goal and the NRA buying guns knowing they are going to be raffled off? Those per this ruling are straw purchases as they are knowingly buying them to "sell" to other people.
Same way if you buy 3 C&R guns to get the best one for your collection and then sell the other two, which has been legal, isn't that a straw purchase? You are not the ultimate purchaser.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom