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)
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
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.
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)
Think of all the AR's purchased at Wal-Mart this year and resold via the internet for two to three times the purchase price.
MeMelYup wrote:Think of all the AR's purchased at Wal-Mart this year and resold via the internet for two to three times the purchase price.
Think of all the ways the government can abuse this if the Court rules in their favor.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
Superman wrote: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.
It would seem the definiton of "straw purchase" is being changed here.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God, and the Bible." George Washington
I expect to get flamed but, he signed the form saying he was the buyer and he knew that he was buying it for someone else. When you sign that form you are taking an oath. He violated the law to save a few bucks for a family member. I think he is going to get burned. The other issue which will probably also get me flamed is the discount that LEO get. I don't get any discounts from Glock or any other firearm company for all of the years I served in the military. I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more. I get a discount for my CHL based on age... I don't think I should. As a senior citizen I can probably afford things better than my younger associates.
rotor wrote:I expect to get flamed but, he signed the form saying he was the buyer and he knew that he was buying it for someone else.
<snip>
Flamed? Nah. But what about buying a firearm for your spouse or children as a gift? Was my dad making a straw purchase when he bought me my first rifle, was I with the handguns I bought for my wife? If yes then there WILL be a lot of problems for firearms owners across the country. If not, then what is different about utilizing your discount and passing it on to a family member who is legally eligible to purchase a firearm? The money?
We definitely need to watch this one.
I Thess 5:21
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut
"Straw purchases can be illegal in the United States when made at a federally licensed firearm dealership. If the straw purchaser of the firearm lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun, he can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. If a firearm is purchased as a gift, the transaction is not a straw purchase, and the person buying the gift is considered the end user. Straw purchases made outside of federally regulated dealerships are not illegal unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser"
I was under the impression that a person could purchase a firearm with the intention of gifting it to someone as long as the person they were gifting it to was not disqualified from purchasing/owning a firearm. Is this not the case? Or is this an issue because he sold it instead of gifting it?
ETA: looks like RBW posted the answer as I was typing my question.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
Perhaps the wording on the form should be changed to better reflect the intent: "I am not purchasing this for someone who is not legally permitted to purchase it himself" or words to that effect.
MasterOfNone wrote:Perhaps the wording on the form should be changed to better reflect the intent: "I am not purchasing this for someone who is not legally permitted to purchase it himself" or words to that effect.
I was unsure what box to check when I bought my wife a gun. I'm pretty sure the guy at Academy knew I was not buying a "Lady Lavendar" .38 for myself....at least I hope not!
"Laugh about everything or cry about nothing."
NRA Life Member & TSRA Member/ Former USAF
Without reading up on the letter of the law, my first impression is that it WAS a straw purchase. He bought it (at a discount) because his relative couldn't buy it (at a discount). He didn't gift it to the relative, he sold it to the relative, and that was his plan from the beginning.
Aside from that, he did the right things - FFL's. This may be a case where the intent of the law isn't clearly expressed in the letter of the law, but nevertheless, it seems he broke the letter of the law, and it's up to the court to rule on the intent of the law.
In hindsight, he should have gifted it to the relative, and the relative should have given him a really really nice Christmas present.
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.
I was unsure what box to check when I bought my wife a gun. I'm pretty sure the guy at Academy knew I was not buying a "Lady Lavendar" .38 for myself....at least I hope not! 