TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote: I suspect that any FFL that received a 4473 form with a "no" answer to one of the questions, would deny the sale.

The BATF added that question without any legislative action. While they may be able to take regulatory action against a licensee should their administrative changes have the automatic force of law for everyone?

RoyGBiv wrote:

rotor wrote:When you sign a government form swearing to something and you are in fact lying it doesn't matter what the intent is... they got you. It is a felony to not tell the truth apparently. Is there any question about whether the individual lied when he signed the form?

But.. lying on a form (perjury) would be a different violation and thus different penalty than a violation of gun control law...

Well truthfully he was charged with two offences and one of them had to do with giving bad info on the required forms. Strangely enough tho is that in some states they could not charge him with a crime depending on what federal district he was in. What matters is not if he lied but is that lie material. If you lied about something that makes no difference in buying a firearm, and I can't think of what questions are on the forms right now to come up with an example, like if they BATF started asking what your height was and you filled it out wrong, it would not be criminal. That is basicly what they did with this question because legally even you you put no as to you being the purchaser there is no law that prevents you buying that gun.

rotor wrote: All this seems pretty clear to me. He is guilty of a straw purchase.

Well it must not be that clear because 2 of the 5 circuit courts have case law that says otherwise. There is also the fact that just because a govt agency prints something up doesn't give it the force of law. The BATF decided on it's own to change the forms and to "create" the question for which the legislature had no input on. Obviously they, BATF, are a licensing agency as well as a law enforcement one so sure they may be able to change regulations and paperwork but should that paperwork automaticly be give the force of law? Pulling someones licence? Maybe. Sending someone to jail? Another thing entirely.

WildBill wrote:

EEllis wrote:

WildBill wrote:You are all assuming that the intent of the law was to prevent people from giving or selling guns to persons who can not purchase them legally. What if the intent of the law was to have a legal record of people who possess handguns [i.e. gun registration]?

Well in this case it easy to say because the author of the law has stated the purpose of said law. As a matter of fact the law didn't even make straw purchases illegal. The courts later created a "legal fiction" to fill the loophole in the law to make such straw purchases illegal. This man was convicted of illegally purchasing a gun when if he had disclosed to the dealer that he would be reselling it to his uncle he still could have bought the gun. Sure he checked an incorrect box and maybe he could have committed a crime in doing so but that doesn't make the sale illegal just his statement about the purchase.

Where is this stated?

Go here http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ed-states/ and it gives you all the briefs submited to SCOTUS for this case.

jimlongley wrote:
I agree, for the most part, but the BATF advisory is not the letter of the law, and that one is ancient history (I'll even bet some BATF agents were born after it) and easily ignored if they choose. The letter of the law says what it says, BATF's interpretation doesn't much matter, and I'll bet that varies a lot from one agent to the next.

Yes, I agree that some regularization is needed, I just hope that SCOTUS sees that there is a clear difference between saying you are buying it for yourself and then turning around and selling it to a criminal, or saying you are buying it for yourself and then selling it to your uncle who passes an instant check.

The law was written in 1976 and there have been no changes that I know that have any effect on this case. The truth is that the letter of the law allows this and what he has been charged with is a "legal fiction" created by the courts to fill a loophole in the language of the law.

WildBill wrote:

EEllis wrote: 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.

It may be worth noting, but I don't think it's relevant to the lawsuit.

Well, yes, it is relevant to the the defendants case since in their view, and 2 of the 5 circuits, the intent to deliver a firearm to someone who couldn't buy the gun legally is the defining factor not what you put on the form. The fact that the Govt got all the info, everything they might want on the sales, clearly shows the intent was not to deceive the Govt. Now you may hold with a different interpretation of how the law should be applied but those facts are clearly germane to the argument

WildBill wrote:You are all assuming that the intent of the law was to prevent people from giving or selling guns to persons who can not purchase them legally. What if the intent of the law was to have a legal record of people who possess handguns [i.e. gun registration]?

Well in this case it easy to say because the author of the law has stated the purpose of said law. As a matter of fact the law didn't even make straw purchases illegal. The courts later created a "legal fiction" to fill the loophole in the law to make such straw purchases illegal. This man was convicted of illegally purchasing a gun when if he had disclosed to the dealer that he would be reselling it to his uncle he still could have bought the gun. Sure he checked an incorrect box and maybe he could have committed a crime in doing so but that doesn't make the sale illegal just his statement about the purchase.

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.

rotor wrote:

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?

The thought that I don't pay more is like the government giving you something for free. When one group gets a discount another group pays more. Glock is a company that wants to make a profit. They adjust their prices to do that. Someone pays less, someone else pays more. Just basic economics.

It's more than a bit simplistic. Glock considers use by police to be advertising. They spend a lot on advertising and yes that is built into the price you pay. Your belief seems to be based on the idea that if they didn't "advertise" by giving cops a price break then they wouldn't replace that advertising with something else.
That's a bit of a leap. Not to mention they don't lose money on LEO sales anyway. Many companies market discounts towards specific groups and the idea that prices for every other group goes up because of it seems a bit off.

rotor wrote:

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?

The thought that I don't pay more is like the government giving you something for free. When one group gets a discount another group pays more. Glock is a company that wants to make a profit. They adjust their prices to do that. Someone pays less, someone else pays more. Just basic economics.

It's more than a bit simplistic. Glock considers use by police to be advertising. They spend a lot on advertising and yes that is built into the price you pay. Your belief seems to be based on the idea that if they didn't "advertise" by giving cops a price break then they wouldn't replace that advertising with something else.
That's a bit of a leap. Not to mention they don't lose money on LEO sales anyway. Many companies market discounts towards specific groups and the idea that prices for every other group goes up because of it seems a bit off.

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?