Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Aug 2006
  • Posts 6332
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline
Bronze
  • Joined Aug 2006
  • Posts 6332
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline
Posted: 1/22/2014 10:08:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/22/2014 10:10:32 AM EST by Disintegr8or]
I've been hearing about it all day, but didn't find anything under "straw" in search.


The Supreme Court on Wednesday debated whether a Virginia man who bought a gun for a relative in Pennsylvania can be considered an illegal straw purchaser when both men were legally eligible to purchase firearms.

The justices heard an appeal from Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former police officer. Abramski bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Va., in 2009 and transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa., who paid him $400.

Abramski was arrested after police thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Va. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

Abramski answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Abramski's lawyers told the high court that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him. "The only thing the straw purchaser doctrine in this case really accomplishes is to prohibit law-abiding citizens from buying guns for other law-abiding citizens, and that's something that Congress expressly chose not to do," said lawyer Richard D. Dietz.

The law's purpose of being able to trace firearms would be undercut if the only record was of the straw purchaser, Justice Samuel Alito said. "This legislation, the way Congress designed it, is not focused on sort of the end point," said Dietz. "It's not concerned about where a gun is actually going, who's ultimately going to receive it. What Congress was concerned about was the starting point."

For example, a gun buyer can purchase a weapon, walk out of a store and then immediately legally resell the weapon to a stranger without a background check, Dietz said. "And Congress understood that that's how the process would work and that was part of the compromise. What Congress wanted was accurate information about the initial person who acquires the firearm so at least they can try to do that trace," he said.

Continued here
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2006
  • Posts 847
  • Location USA OH, USA
Offline
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2006
  • Posts 847
  • Location USA OH, USA
Offline
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 10:09:56 AM EST
I saw at least two threads this morning. Had SCOTUS in title I beleive. Did not have petitioner's name in title.
Vox Clamantis in Deserto
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 6375
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline
Lifetime Member
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 6375
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline
NRA
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 10:11:53 AM EST
A chance to cut is a chance to cure
Life Member: AR15.com, NRA, NYSRPA, SAF
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Aug 2006
  • Posts 6333
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline
Bronze
  • Joined Aug 2006
  • Posts 6333
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 10:12:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/22/2014 10:15:10 AM EST by Disintegr8or]
Weird, no results for "straw" "purchase" or "Bruce James" in searches.

Edit, I see the OP spelled "Supreme" as "Supream" or some shit. Spelling is indeed for Fags.

Sorry for the Dupe
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Mar 2007
  • Posts 5326
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline
Bronze
  • Joined Mar 2007
  • Posts 5326
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 10:12:58 AM EST
I believe there were like a million of them.
Top