TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

WildBill wrote:

EEllis wrote:

WildBill wrote: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.

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.

EEllis wrote: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

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.