TexasCHLforum.com

If I receive a check from a client that's income now, even if I choose to wait until January to deposit it.

MeMelYup wrote: 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."

Well yes, if you read the defendants side, his lawyer spins it as innocent and supporting of his case.
If you read the government's side ...

On November 15, 2009, Alvarez sent
petitioner a check for $400 with “Glock 19 handgun”
written in the memo line

On November 17, 2009, petitioner purchased a Glock
19 handgun

BTW, I trust neither side to be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.. They each will say what they need to to achieve the outcome desired. I'll assume for this conversation doing so legally and not lying.. but the same truth can be spun in many ways, facts are very useful in getting people to believe anything you want them to.. it's all in how, when or if you tell them.
15th being before the 17th, indicates to me, Mr Abramski was paid for a gun he had not yet purchased, and that the purchase was clearly intended to be for Mr Alvarez .

Again, what do I know...Im just calling it like I see it... as do others here... there are no wrongs, just opinions.

Intent of the law as set forth by those empowered to create law.. was NOT violated in my belief.
The Government disagrees,,,

now SCOTUS gets to decide

EEllis wrote:

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?

Legislative enactments are often unclear. That simply states the obvious. Often the first authorities having to construe an unclear statute are the persons who are given the chore to implement the statute. This statute appears to be so unclear that the federal circuit courts of appeal, not dummies, are split, and it so unclear that it has now gone to our highest judicial authority for decision (perhaps).

Jim

It's key to the emotional red herring, but legally it doesn't matter that the actual final purchaser was his uncle.

If it happened in Texas, it also wouldn't matter legally if the second transfer went through a FFL or FTF.

The idea and intend of prohibiting straw purchases was to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who does nothave a legal right to own one. I should think that the fact that it was resold through an FFL, would show that it did not meet the intend of a straw purchase. He tried to to the right thing and just save his relative a little money at the same time. He could have lied and simply said he bought it for himself and when his relative saw did, he liked it and made him an offer on it - in which case they would not need to go through an FFL (unless for some reason thier state required it?)

IMHO he was the purchaser if he paid for it. If the relative handed him the money to pay for it and took possession of the gun without the extra FFL transaction to the relative it could in the widest terms maybe considered a straw purchase, but even then I don't think it meets the intent of a straw purchase.

This is stupid waste of tax payer dollars, and man hours. The most he should get is displinary action from his employer for misusing the discount system.

If this case goes against him, the federal goverment (read ATF) will misuse the h*ll out of it just like the feds have misused the commerce clause.

The ATF mindset that was used to prosecute this guy is exactly the type of mind set that leads to Waco type incidents

If someone will lie or cheat to get a discount, what lies is he willing to tell about more important things.

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.

He was the buyer. He paid and he took direct possession of the firearm. There is no time limit put on that question stating you have to own the firearm for 1 hour, 1 week, or 1 month before you decide to get rid of it.

I guess we wait and see who is right on this ( or at least what the court says is right ). I believe it will be interpreted as a straw purchase even though his intent may have been just to save a family member a few bucks.

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.

Thank you for the quotes. Based on the example, it looks like the key difference is money changing hands. A gift is allowed but purchase as an agent or middleman is not. Assumng someone cares about answering the question honestly on the government document. If not, then they can lie all they want on the form and as long as they're not a prohibited person that's fine.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... #pagebreak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems Scalia and Roberts are leaning toward the ATF overstepped its authority ...

Justice Antonin Scalia was the most ardent in pointing out that the government was out of bounds in its pursuit of Mr. Abramski.

“What about somebody who is qualified to own a firearm? Can I take a firearm that I own and say, ‘You know, it’s yours?’” Justice Scalia asked the plaintiff’s attorney, who confirmed that it was lawful.

He continued, “Don’t have to register it? I don’t have to go through a firearm dealer, right? It’s my gun, and I can give it to somebody else who’s qualified.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to side with the plaintiff’s position that the ATF had overstepped into trying to create criminal law. Referring to the Gun Control Act, the chief justice said, “This language is fought over tooth and nail by people on the gun-control side and the gun-ownership side.”

He called it “very problematic” for the government to cite going after law abiding people who resell firearms as a purpose of the law since “there are no words in the statute that have anything to do with straw purchasers.”