TexasCHLforum.com

Either way, this case goes against the intent on the law. The intent is to prevent someone who is legally allowed to buy a firearm from buying a firearm for someone who it is illegal for them to buy it themselves. This does not fit that intent. There were two completely separate transactions taking place. The first buyer was the intended owner, even if the time frame was small. He then sold it to his uncle and that transaction was completely legal as well. His uncle was legally allowed to purchase a firearm...again, it went through an FFL with a NICS check. Two separate legal transactions.

Let's hope that they rule that it was not a "straw purchase," and that it was simply an abuse of an "employee discount." That's really all it was since both were legal to own a gun. His uncle was not prohibited from owning a firearm and it was two separate purchases...even going through FFL's and background checks. This is craziness.

The key issue is whether Abramski committed a crime by buying a gun, and then promptly re-selling it to another person who was legally entitled to own the firearm.

Wouldn't every single FFL be in this category then? An FFL buys guns with the intent to "promptly re-sell it to another person who is legally entitled to own the firearm." Again...this is craziness.