SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

[K.Mooneyham]

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.

Something we can agree on, good. I thought the same thing, that they were trying to create law through regulations. Not cool. Straw purchase = buying it for someone who isn't legal to have it in the first place. Besides, if the guy was trying to be deceptive, why would he go through the hassle of doing the transfer through an FFL? Hope the SCOTUS exercises some "common sense" on this one.

[RogueUSMC]

This is a crazy case and I am not sure what to think...

...that is why the government needs to tell us what to think...lol

[rotor]

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?

[RoyGBiv]

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...

[EEllis]

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.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

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

[bayouhazard]

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.

I bet most of them didn't file a Schedule C to report that income either.

[EEllis]

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?

[TrackinPat]

This is a crazy case and I am not sure what to think...

...that is why the government needs to tell us what to think...lol

Lol, DEFINITELY NOT. It's just a tough case.

[Pink Puddin]

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...

Either way it sounds like he made a false statement on a government document just to cheat Glock out of a few dollars. Regardless of what federal crimes he did or didn't commit, that says something about his character.

[MeMelYup]

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 18 U.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.

According to this statement on the back of the 4473, even if he purchased the item for resale and checked yes, he has not lied.

[E.Marquez]

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 18 U.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.

According to this statement on the back of the 4473, even if he purchased the item for resale and checked yes, he has not lied.

Is that how you read it

I'm seeing this
"ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith (uncle) asks Mr. Jones (Abramski) to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith(uncle) . Mr. Smith (uncle) gives Mr. Jones(Abramski) the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones (Abramski) 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.(Abramski) "

Which seem to exactly describe the event in question and clearly states the guy with cash in hand MUST CHECK NO, and further that the licensee may not transfer the weapon.

[MeMelYup]

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 18 U.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.

According to this statement on the back of the 4473, even if he purchased the item for resale and checked yes, he has not lied.

Is that how you read it

I'm seeing this
"ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith (uncle) asks Mr. Jones (Abramski) to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith(uncle) . Mr. Smith (uncle) gives Mr. Jones(Abramski) the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones (Abramski) 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.(Abramski) "

Which seem to exactly describe the event in question and clearly states the guy with cash in hand MUST CHECK NO, and further that the licensee may not transfer the weapon.

I have not read anything where he was asked by his relative to purchase the gun for that relative. There has been nothing indicating that the relative gave him money to purchase the item prior to the purchase. The relative was legally able to purchase a gun because it was transferred to the relative through a FFL. Where is the crime as far as the ATF is concerned?

[E.Marquez]

I have not read anything where he was asked by his relative to purchase the gun for that relative. There has been nothing indicating that the relative gave him money to purchase the item prior to the purchase. The relative was legally able to purchase a gun because it was transferred to the relative through a FFL. Where is the crime as far as the ATF is concerned?

Might check again...
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ed-states/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


In the links provided in this thread it was stated ..
Allegedly the uncle and Mr Abramski discussed the purchase and transfer before the purchase took place.
Allegedly His uncle wrote him a check before the purchase, and indicated on the check it was for the Glock 19 purchased later.
Both the Uncle and Mr Abramski admitted the weapon was purchased for the uncle.

All that aside, from what i have read.. I believe the intent of the law was not violated, and I believe both the Uncle and Mr Abramski believed what they were doing was legal and I believe they were advised at the point of purchase that the deal was legal (ethics of the choice to buy a discounted firearm and reselling to another aside, as its not germane to the event or issue at hand)

[MeMelYup]

I have not read anything where he was asked by his relative to purchase the gun for that relative. There has been nothing indicating that the relative gave him money to purchase the item prior to the purchase. The relative was legally able to purchase a gun because it was transferred to the relative through a FFL. Where is the crime as far as the ATF is concerned?

Might check again...
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ed-states/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


In the links provided in this thread it was stated ..
Allegedly the uncle and Mr Abramski discussed the purchase and transfer before the purchase took place.
Allegedly His uncle wrote him a check before the purchase, and indicated on the check it was for the Glock 19 purchased later.
Both the Uncle and Mr Abramski admitted the weapon was purchased for the uncle.

All that aside, from what i have read.. I believe the intent of the law was not violated, and I believe both the Uncle and Mr Abramski believed what they were doing was legal and I believe they were advised at the point of purchase that the deal was legal (ethics of the choice to buy a discounted firearm and reselling to another aside, as its not germane to the event or issue at hand)

The brief states: "Here, Abramski clearly purchased the firearm with his own money, since he was reimbursed three days after he purchased the gun. The instructions make it appear that this distinction might matter."