2013 Supreme Court Term

Status
Not open for further replies.

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,799
Likes
3,401
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.

-Mike
I'm not so sure it was intended to trap criminals. Criminals don't generally fill out 4473 forms....
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,799
Likes
3,401
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.
FFLs are exempt. If I'm not mistaken, both GOAL and the NRA have FFLs.
 

Ben Cartwright SASS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,920
Likes
518
Location
Massachusetts
That is what I was informed, their raffles go through FFL's. Wonder though in a local sportsman's club raffle where guns may be donated and then transferred via FA10, same as my wondering about simply selling a gun as you are no longer the ultimate purchaser
 

tpm

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
520
Likes
24
Location
Southeastern MA
That is what I was informed, their raffles go through FFL's. Wonder though in a local sportsman's club raffle where guns may be donated and then transferred via FA10, same as my wondering about simply selling a gun as you are no longer the ultimate purchaser
I know any raffle at the gun club I belong goes through a local FFL who is also a member.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
69,197
Likes
28,247
I'm not so sure it was intended to trap criminals. Criminals don't generally fill out 4473 forms....
Well, it depends on whether or not you consider people who straw guns for criminals to also be considered criminals in that act.

I agree though that it is deliberately wide net which only serves to **** with ordinary people, though.

-Mike
 

GM-GUY

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
9,418
Likes
4,822
Location
North Central Mass
Found on another thread -

'Transfer' to one lawfully licensed to another lawfully licensed is now illegal, buying booze for someone else - even though of age - bad also I would imagine.
 
Last edited:

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,799
Likes
3,401
That is what I was informed, their raffles go through FFL's. Wonder though in a local sportsman's club raffle where guns may be donated and then transferred via FA10, same as my wondering about simply selling a gun as you are no longer the ultimate purchaser
If I understand the ruling (which I very well may not,) it would be OK for you to transfer a gun that you own to someone who won a raffle so long as you didn't buy the gun with specific intent to do so. The whole thing is completely moronic and pointless, but we already knew that.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
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.
They seem to have no trouble enforcing due process and rules of evidence when murder, rape and other heinous crimes are involved and the dirtbag walks.

There is no excuse for this.

As you say, the liberals are not distinguishing between malcontent/criminal and ordinary citizen with no intent or actual harm because they view us all as rabble who are only allowed to remain free as long as we do as we are told.
 

Ben Cartwright SASS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,920
Likes
518
Location
Massachusetts
If I understand the ruling (which I very well may not,) it would be OK for you to transfer a gun that you own to someone who won a raffle so long as you didn't buy the gun with specific intent to do so. The whole thing is completely moronic and pointless, but we already knew that.
Intent seems to be the key thing, which ties into my other question, if you buy 2 C&R guns with the intent to put the better one in your collection and then sell the other one, which per BATF has been legal, is that now a straw purchase. You bought a gun with the intent to sell it.
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,799
Likes
3,401
Well, it depends on whether or not you consider people who straw guns for criminals to also be considered criminals in that act.

I agree though that it is deliberately wide net which only serves to **** with ordinary people, though.

-Mike
I'm just not convinced that this straw purchase "problem" that we hear so much about is statistically significant. I think the true goal of this was to track the sale of guns to individuals, and they used the 1% (if it's even that many) who "buy for the other guy" as a ramrod.
 

Ben Cartwright SASS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,920
Likes
518
Location
Massachusetts
In hearing and reading, BATF says that you ARE the purchaser if you buy a gun in the following three situations

Buy it to give it to someone else as a gift
Buy it to raffle it
Buy it to resell it

The third case, if the guy had sold the gun to the uncle at a discounted price that would not have been a straw purchase, per NRA. It was a straw purchase because he was given money to buy the gun. If he had bought it because he knew his uncle wanted one and then sold it to him, even though he lost money on it, that would be fine (buying for resale)

It is all semantics
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
15,526
Likes
8,760
Location
Southern NH
My post is going to be based on ignorance here (on phone in middle of nowhere, haven't read the desision yet) and only based on people's remarks on it.

It sounds like the conviction was upheld based on the wording of the legislation. Aren't they (SCOTUS) suppose to rule on both whether or not the law was actually broken AND the constitutionality of said law? How can upholding they buying a gun when you have a legal right to do so as a crime be consistent with something that is constitutional? It seems to me like it would be the exact opposite. I need to read the ruling because I must be way off base with it to come up with this interpretation.
 

Asaltweapon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
13,339
Likes
6,260
Location
Northern Mass
Is it a stupid law for law abiding gun owners? No question.

I have been asked a few times to buy a gun for another legal owner by a third person who is not a PP. He wanted to buy a gift for an employee. My reply was no I can't do it for the risk of violating the straw purchaser law. I guess I could have done a FTF transaction but the paper trail still shows.

No need to have any problems over a favor.
 

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
906
Likes
382
Location
Just North of Boston
The decision seems to offer little clarification of what is/isn't acceptable, so can we conclude (sort of) that the dude was screwed because of the paper trail which included a check from his grandfather notated as for the gun purchase and dated prior to his then false statement that he was the true purchaser of the gun?

Is it not a straw purchase if you buy the gun with the general intent of selling it at some time in the future to a not yet know buyer as opposed to buying it with the specific intent of transferring it to a know individual. If buying with the general intent of reselling, is there a recommended minimum period of time the gun should be held before resale to avoid arousing suspicion?
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,807
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
If someone asks you to buy a gun, or you offer to buy a gun for someone you are acting on their behalf. My understanding is if you're "acting on behalf" of someone that's a straw purchase according to my interpretation of the BATFE's position.

I don't agree with the law (or really, the BATFE interpretation of the law), but I don't understand why there is confusion about it.

In this case, the guy's uncle sent him a check and asked him to buy a gun for him. The guy was acting "on behalf" of his uncle.

If someone asks you to go into the store where you work and buy a TV for them because you get a discount and you do that, you are a straw purchaser of that TV. Even worse for this pair of guys is that they documented it beforehand by the favor-asker writing a check for it before the purchase.

You can buy a gun with the purpose of reselling it. Or giving it to the police (Mark Kelly's AR 15 deal). Or gifting it. It's not a straw purchase. If you have an agreement with someone to get the gun for them, then it is. It seems pretty simple to me.

Unless I'm wrong about it! (It happens...)
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,839
Likes
2,320
If someone asks you to buy a gun, or you offer to buy a gun for someone you are acting on their behalf. My understanding is if you're "acting on behalf" of someone that's a straw purchase according to my interpretation of the BATFE's position.

I don't agree with the law (or really, the BATFE interpretation of the law), but I don't understand why there is confusion about it.

In this case, the guy's uncle sent him a check and asked him to buy a gun for him. The guy was acting "on behalf" of his uncle.

If someone asks you to go into the store where you work and buy a TV for them because you get a discount and you do that, you are a straw purchaser of that TV. Even worse for this pair of guys is that they documented it beforehand by the favor-asker writing a check for it before the purchase.

You can buy a gun with the purpose of reselling it. Or giving it to the police (Mark Kelly's AR 15 deal). Or gifting it. It's not a straw purchase. If you have an agreement with someone to get the gun for them, then it is. It seems pretty simple to me.

Unless I'm wrong about it! (It happens...)
The issue here is the gun was sent to another FFL who background checked the second buyer. What is the purpose of criminalizing straw buyers if not to ensure background checks are done?
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,799
Likes
3,401
The issue here is the gun was sent to another FFL who background checked the second buyer. What is the purpose of criminalizing straw buyers if not to ensure background checks are done?
Just playing devil's advocate here, but the transfer to the second dealer happened after the straw purchase at the first dealer. You can't buy something with the intention of strawing it to another guy and say "oh well I was going to (or did) send it to a second dealer to do a legal transfer." The straw purchase horse already left the barn.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,839
Likes
2,320
Just playing devil's advocate here, but the transfer to the second dealer happened after the straw purchase at the first dealer. You can't buy something with the intention of strawing it to another guy and say "oh well I was going to (or did) send it to a second dealer to do a legal transfer." The straw purchase horse already left the barn.
That's exactly the tact that the court took. They ignored the second transfer beyond simply noting it as completing the intent of the straw purchase.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,807
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
The issue here is the gun was sent to another FFL who background checked the second buyer. What is the purpose of criminalizing straw buyers if not to ensure background checks are done?
I understand the issue (I think!).

Until such time as we fix it... if someone asks you to buy a gun for them? "Sorry dad, can't do it. But if you're a good boy I will get you one as a present. May I see your LTC please?"
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
934
Likes
119
Location
Braintree
The majority argument seems to be if we overturned his conviction it would undermine our laws, so we wont over turn it. It pays no attention to the fact that maybe these laws are wrong and need to be reworked or discarded.
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,799
Likes
3,401
The majority argument seems to be if we overturned his conviction it would undermine our laws, so we wont over turn it. It pays no attention to the fact that maybe these laws are wrong and need to be reworked or discarded.
That's about the best summary I've seen so far.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,839
Likes
2,320
Keep in mind that his lawyer didn't make the argument that the laws were deficient. Had he, the outcome may have been different.
 

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
906
Likes
382
Location
Just North of Boston
Doubtful, given that the decision was along ideological lines.
In the end, wouldn't it be about tailoring your arguments to Justice Kennedy? As we've seen, he'll continue for the foreseeable future to be the swing vote on 2A matters and while he is far from reliable on all 2A matters for our side, he's far from being counted as a left-wing ideologue as are the members of the left-wing of the court. While the majority opinion was written from an ideological perspective, it is possible that Kennedy might have been persuaded by the deficiency argument. To get a better read on Kennedy I would have preferred a separate opinion from him concurring with the majority without the ideological hogwash (stating of course that concurring with the dissenters thus making them the majority would have been the best outcome).
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
The Abramski decision appeared to me to be right down the lines of the philosophy of statutory construction. Purpose and Intent vs. Textualism.

That's the reason it was 5-4, not because it was a case concerning guns.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
15,526
Likes
8,760
Location
Southern NH
And the fact that over half of those on our highest court can't interpret legislation based on intent is pretty disturbing. I mean, imagine if a spelling error made it's way into law, or worse, the wrong word (like their vs there, etc). It could change the whole meaning! How would they possibly resolve things.

"Well you see, he complied with the laws intent, but our esteemed legislations were too inept to actually pass a coherent, properly structured sentence, and he did violate the grammatically incorrect law. Guilty!"
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
The Abramski decision appeared to me to be right down the lines of the philosophy of statutory construction. Purpose and Intent vs. Textualism.

That's the reason it was 5-4, not because it was a case concerning guns.
I disagree as the 4 members majority generally just reads whatever they need to satisfy their agenda as demonstrated in Heller and Macdonald. There was no "textualism" to be found but rather whole-cloth fabrication of history.

This decision came as it did "because gun".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom