Search found 5 matches

by RoyGBiv
Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:29 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
Replies: 70
Views: 8469

Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

Just so we're all on the same page, here are the instructions from 4473.
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download ... 4473-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS-FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18U.S.C.§922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.
I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.
Also worth nothing that it is NOT illegal for you to give the same money to me to buy you a gun from my uncle Jim. Money goes from you to me to Jim. Gun goes from Jim to me to you. As long as I am confident (certainty not required) that you are not a prohibited person, there would be nothing illegal in that transaction. The only thing potentially illegal in the OP example/case is that some Federal agency made a flypaper rule that you got caught up in. SCOTUS needs to clarify whether BATFE has that authority under the Constitution and subsequent US Code, or whether 4473 11a is too broad.
by RoyGBiv
Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:19 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
Replies: 70
Views: 8469

Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

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...
by RoyGBiv
Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:03 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
Replies: 70
Views: 8469

Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

Specifically re: the straw purchase...
The government will certainly argue that since Abramski received payment in advance, and that payment was undeniably to purchase the gun, then it was a straw purchase. His only defense will be to argue that the prohibition against straw purchases is limited to transfers to prohibited persons, IMO.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020130123101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In order to implement the transaction, Alvarez sent Abramski a check for $400 on November 15, 2009. The term "Glock 19 handgun" was written in the memo line of the check.

On November 17, 2009, Abramski went to the firearms dealer in Collinsville and purchased a Glock 19 handgun, among other items, paying for them with more than $2000 in cash
by RoyGBiv
Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:35 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
Replies: 70
Views: 8469

Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

I agree that he MAY have broken the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.... SCOTUS will now make the decision, and possibly clarify the limits of the law.

Unfortunately, the case may be clouded by the fact that the accused was the subject of arrest for bank robbery. The straw purchase violation was filed following his release from the more serious charges which were dismissed for lack of evidence.

http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/269289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Muddies the waters a bit, no? :roll:
by RoyGBiv
Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:08 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case
Replies: 70
Views: 8469

SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Firearms ‘Straw Purchaser’ Case
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/201 ... aser-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to adjudicate a case involving a firearms purchase and subsequent resale to a family member. In the case of Abramski v. United States, Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former Virginia police officer, is appealing his conviction for making a “straw purchase” of a Glock handgun. Abramski had lawfully purchased a Glock pistol in Virginia, then later resold the Glock to his uncle, a resident of Pennsylvania. Both purchases were conducted through FFLs, with full background checks, and both parties were legally entitled to own a handgun. Abramski arranged the sale in this fashion to take advantage of a discount available to him as a law enforcement officer.

Abramski was indicted and prosecuted for violating Federal laws against “straw purchases”, specifically making a false declaration on BATFE Form 4473....
(More, including reference links, at above link)

Return to “SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case”