TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

jimlongley wrote:
Exactly. Tough to draw the line. But in this case, he bought it with the express purpose of reselling it, and that would be a violation of the letter, and the spirit, of the law.

Is it? Over at http://armsandthelaw.com/ David Hardy posted this about the issue.

I uncovered in my ancient files a BATF "Industry Circular," from 1979, which advises dealers to avoid straw man sales, and in defining them says they are unlawful if the ultimate recipient is a prohibited person, and lawful if the ultimate recipient could legally buy.

My understanding is the laws haven't changed it's the court interpretation of the laws and what makes this case a necessity for SCOTUS is that different circuits have ruled different ways.

Had Abramski been prosecuted in a court in the Fifth
or Ninth Circuits, he would not have been convicted. As the
Fifth Circuit has explained Ҥ 922(a)(6) criminalizes false
statements that are intended to deceive federal fi rearms
dealers with respect to facts material to the ‘lawfulness
of the sale’ of fi rearms. . . . Thus, if the true purchaser can
lawfully purchase a fi rearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability
(under a ‘straw purchase’ theory) does not attach.” United
States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286, 295 (5th Cir. 1997).

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conten ... iorari.pdf

But in this case, the Fourth Circuit joined the
Sixth and Eleventh Circuits in expressly rejecting that
reasoning and holding that “[t]he identity of the purchaser
is a constant that is always material to the lawfulness of
the purchase of a fi rearm under § 922(a)(6).” App. 15a-16a
(emphasis in original).

Regardless of which way you think the court should decide it's obvious that a SCOTUS decision is warranted to reguralize Fed law and how it's to be applied.



It is also worth noting that the Uncle went to three dealers in his hometown to ask about the legality of the transaction and all the dealers told him that it was legal. The nephew purchased the handgun and then took the firearm to a gun store in his uncles town and they transferred the handgun to his uncle. There was no attempt to deceive the feds or hide who had the handgun just an attempt to save an old guy a few bucks.

txglock21 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

jimlongley wrote:(say, if he bought the gun and then a suitable time later sold it to his relative.)

As soon as you add a variable that can be loosely interpreted by what ever arm of the law you have the attention of.. problems will arise.
Who decides "suitable time later" ? Obviously it wont be the one charged.. so the officer? Patrol Sergeant? DA? BATF agent? Judge?

Many a person has bought a gun with the intent of keeping it, then resold it hours, days later. Need of cash,,, wife got mad, shot once and does not feel right, bout a left handed bolt rifle on clearance,, and did not noting it was for a lefty.. what ever the reason....

"They" enacted waiting periods to purchase a gun.. Now we need waiting periods to sell a gun????

Clearly the law was not enacted to prevent Mr x from buying a gun at a good price and selling that gun to someone else who is legally allowed to own it as the original purchaser.

Once again, making criminals of otherwise honest citizens.

This case will be interesting to follow.

You beat me to it! I was going to ask what is a "suitable" time and who is going to decide that? 1 week, 1 month, 1 year or 5 years??? Please, lets not give them anymore bright ideas.