pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Supreme Court gun sale case
#1
You guys watching this one? I don't understand why it's a big deal. Guns are resold all the time between legal owners.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/...latestnews

Quote:The Supreme Court took up a new gun rights case on Wednesday, weighing whether it should be a crime for someone to buy a gun for somebody else, if both people are legally allowed to own one.

Justices on Wednesday heard from Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former police officer who got in trouble with the law after he bought a Glock 19 handgun in Virginia -- and transferred it to his uncle in Pennsylvania.

Abramski bought the gun because he could get a discount, and checked a box on the relevant form saying the gun was for him. But he sold it to his uncle.

Abramski was later indicted under federal law for making a false statement material to the lawfulness of a firearm sale -- and for making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a license firearm dealer.

But 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.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#2
I was just about to post this, lol. I agree. In theory, I see nothing wrong with this as long as both parties are not prohibited. However, the ATF form does ask if you are the actual buyer. Legally, it's a tough call.
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#3
Philadelphia Patriot;132459 Wrote:I was just about to post this, lol. I agree. In theory, I see nothing wrong with this as long as both parties are not prohibited. However, the ATF form does ask if you are the actual buyer. Legally, it's a tough call.

And it comes down to intent.
[Image: picsay-1358258813.jpg]
Reply
#4
Well, you are the actual buyer. Who is to say you don't change your mind two days later?

Judging intent is way too little to base criminal cases on, especially if nobody was affected or hurt.

I'm curious as to who turned them in.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#5
RugerGirl;132468 Wrote:Well, you are the actual buyer. Who is to say you don't change your mind two days later?

Judging intent is way too little to base criminal cases on, especially if nobody was affected or hurt.

I'm curious as to who turned them in.

Maybe the atf has a program on their computers where a red flag raises if a gun was bought then sold within X amount of days? Shrug
That is my guess.
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#6
Quote: But 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.

That's the most asinine logic I've ever heard.


If that's the case, I should be able to buy full auto rifles without the paperwork since I AM "legally allowed to own guns".


Right? Rolleyes
Reply
#7
Not exactly. More a conflict between the spirit of the law and the written law.
Dave, proudly annoying members of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#8
The law was to prevent straw purchases.....but this really wasn't a straw purchase, was it?

I wonder if it made it worse being across state lines.....
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#9
Dave;132477 Wrote:Not exactly. More a conflict between the spirit of the law and the written law.


Oh, OK. I guess I can see that. If he meant that the uncle wasn't a prohibited person and the sale wasn't being made to allow a prohibited person to gain possession.
I guess that's what he meant.
Reply
#10
Case law. The whole form is illegal as the government cannot force someone to testify against themselves. Its that pesky fifth amendment I think. It invalidates the entire process which is why people with money aren't in jail and in general it isn't enforced because it done been ruled as such already some where somehow and its a right and just ruling. Shh... they don't want it getting out. If a good lawyer looks and uses his head an takes it far enough the entire form gets tossed and we can't have that, the fudds believe you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun if you meet the exception in the constitution, wait, what exemption? Oh that due process one that wasn't meant for anything other than you dont get thrown in jail without a trial..

/ted tips apple cart and stomps on some apples /tipping apple cart.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules sgtsandman 2 304 02-24-2017, 08:20 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  BANS ON BLACK RIFLES: WILL SUPREME COURT FINALLY DECIDE CONSTITUTIONALITY? das 4 868 11-03-2015, 08:41 PM
Last Post: das
  Court decision paves the way for Australian-style gun ban das 5 1,151 10-26-2015, 05:19 PM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms
  Assault Weapons Ban Before U.S. Supreme Court das 4 1,066 10-13-2015, 09:55 PM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms
  Supreme Court Deals Blow to Gun Rights While Justice Thomas Delivers a Silver Lining das 20 1,921 06-17-2015, 11:41 PM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.