Supreme Court weighs gun rights challenge

[lostinblue 1,989]

Supreme Court weighs gun rights challenge

Published January 22, 2014

FoxNews.com

Facebook76 Twitter176 LinkedIn0

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.

His team argued that Congress never intended for a lawful buyer who transfers a gun to another lawful owner to be prosecuted under this law -- and that the intent was all about making sure straw buyers don't purchase guns for people not allowed to have them, like certain convicted criminals.

But the government argued that he violated the plain language of the law, when he said on the form that the gun was for him. They argued he never gave the seller any idea that he planned to essentially resell the gun to someone else the dealer would have no opportunity to vet.

Much of Wednesday's arguments centered on the question on the form -- prepared by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- and whether the agency's decision to include the question gives it the force of law, enough to make it a crime to answer untruthfully.

A decision in the case is expected by June.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/supreme-court-weighs-gun-rights-challenge/?intcmp=latestnews

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former police officer

he should know better.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Buy a gun for someone else?

A great idea. Not.

[lostinblue 1,989]

he should know better.

He is arguing that 2 people should have that right if they are both legal to own one . just like buying a car for a son or friend.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't get why he did it in the first place. All the excuses now, but he filled in a form stating completely falsely that the gun was for himself when it was in fact for someone else. Why do that? Why didn't the Uncle buy the gun himself? Why didn't he say he bought if for his uncle? Too many why's and not enough "I was stupid, I did the wrong thing and I will accept the consequences". What are the consequences anyway?

[Sousuke 1,214]

There are reasons why people want to do this. One example is as follows:

Person A has a membership in the CMP and wants a Garand. Person B doesn't have a membership but can legally own the rifle. Person A buys two and then transfers one to B through a FFL 01.

This case will clarify whether the above is legal or not.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Excellent. This is how we are building on Heller and McDonald. The purpose of this case is to eliminate the arbitrary federal law that prevents interstate sales of handguns. A hanger on since 1968 that has never served any valid purpose.

Also look for, in the next few years, the case challenging the law preventing 18-20 year olds from buying handguns. Firearms ownership is the only RIGHT whch is "phased in" by age and actually prohibits adult citizens and residents from excerising until they are 21 These cases will be byilt on to eliminate arbitrary bans on things for no practical reason. Flash hiders, bayonet lugs and pistol grips as an example.

It will not be fast, that's OK. As long as we win.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Buy a gun for someone else?

A great idea. Not.

He shouldn't have lied about it on the form.

[Darnell 8,478]

He is arguing that 2 people should have that right if they are both legal to own one . just like buying a car for a son or friend.

IMO, if'n it's to be legal, it should be trackable, first.

Currently no tracking system in place, so (again IMO) no need to change the law.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Excellent. This is how we are building on Heller and McDonald. The purpose of this case is to eliminate the arbitrary federal law that prevents interstate sales of handguns. A hanger on since 1968 that has never served any valid purpose.

Also look for, in the next few years, the case challenging the law preventing 18-20 year olds from buying handguns. Firearms ownership is the only RIGHT whch is "phased in" by age and actually prohibits adult citizens and residents from excerising until they are 21 These cases will be byilt on to eliminate arbitrary bans on things for no practical reason. Flash hiders, bayonet lugs and pistol grips as an example.

It will not be fast, that's OK. As long as we win.

If someone is old enough to serve in the military they are old enough to buy a handgun, IMO. Ditto for the drinking age. You can die for your country at 18 but can't have a beer or own a handgun?

[Karee 4,190]

If someone is old enough to serve in the military they are old enough to buy a handgun, IMO. Ditto for the drinking age. You can die for your country at 18 but can't have a beer or own a handgun?

By the same token, they should stop charging all these juveniles as adults. Pick an age, and that's it for everything. Crimes, drinking, gun ownership, whatever.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

By the same token, they should stop charging all these juveniles as adults. Pick an age, and that's it for everything. Crimes, drinking, gun ownership, whatever.

Agreed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If someone is old enough to serve in the military they are old enough to buy a handgun, IMO. Ditto for the drinking age. You can die for your country at 18 but can't have a beer or own a handgun?

Exactly

It is a RIGHT and while some rights have age restrictions which have been constitutionally upheld (voting and firearms purchasing are examples) there is NO precedent to "phase in" a right based on age. The age restriction on handguns is unconstitutional and arbitrary. It is in line to be challenged to the SCOTUS

Regarding the topic at hand...the issue is not whether someone buys a gun for someone else...within one's own state that is perfectly legal. I bought both of Alla's guns as gifts for her, she bought me one...so what? She and I purchased the guns from a dealer, then transferred them to each other privately. The issue is whether that right can be restricted when it involves interstate sales. The premise is that BOTH parties are legally allowed to possess a firearm, they are not encumbered by legal disqualifications and they comply with the laws of both states. How can it be illegal for either of them to excerise a RIGHT guaranteed by the Federal Constituttion, upheld as an individual right by SCOTUS (Heller 2008) and upheld to apply to STATES as well as the Feds? (McDonald, 2010)

We will continue to bring cases like this and continue to restore our freedoms, one case at a time. Federal reciprocity on CC will also be a topic for the SCOTUS in the near future.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

IMO, if'n it's to be legal, it should be trackable, first.

Currently no tracking system in place, so (again IMO) no need to change the law.

There is no federal registration (trackable) because so far it has been held to be unconstitutional. The "law" on this matter is the US constitution and infringing on rights unreasonably is not allowed. Period. I agree with you that the constitution does not need to be changed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't get why he did it in the first place. All the excuses now, but he filled in a form stating completely falsely that the gun was for himself when it was in fact for someone else. Why do that? Why didn't the Uncle buy the gun himself? Why didn't he say he bought if for his uncle? Too many why's and not enough "I was stupid, I did the wrong thing and I will accept the consequences". What are the consequences anyway?

The law allows for the private transfer of firearms and specifically allows for gifts as long as the intent/result is not buy firearms for someone who is excluded themselves from doing so. (straw man purchase) The problem is that FEDERAL law forbids the transfer of handguns across state lines except by licensed dealers. Legally the man could have taken the gun to a dealer in a another state, paid a small fee and then told his uncle to go pick up his gift at the dealer. It really is not an issue of how he filled out the form if the intent was for a gift.

The question to be answered is "Can the Federal Gpvernment restrict the right to buy firearms across state lines?" Currently it is legal under federal law to transfer long guns across state lines IF there are no state restrictions preventing it, most states have no restrictions regarding sales of long guns across state lines. Another case of a partial "rationing" of rights.

This restriction was imposed by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Most of which was repealed in 1986. The restriction on interstate sales of handguns remains.