- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court rules against 'Straw Purchasers' of Guns
Posted on 6/16/14 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 6:36 pm
quote:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a rare blow to the gun lobby Monday by ruling that purchasers must report when they are buying firearms for other people.
The 5-4 decision upheld two lower courts that had ruled against so-called straw purchasers, even though the justices acknowledged that Congress left loopholes in gun control laws passed in the 1960s and 1990s.
For gun purchasers to be allowed to buy from licensed dealers without reporting the actual final owners of the firearms, the justices said, would make little sense.
"Putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the slim majority.
Kagan, a New Yorker who acknowledged during her 2010 confirmation hearings that she was not very familiar with guns, was opposed by four conservative justices, led by Justice Antonin Scalia — who famously has taken her hunting on several occasions.
"No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun's purchaser — the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer," Kagan said.
During oral arguments in the case in January, she had noted that without such a finding, "it does not matter whether the ultimate transferee was Al Capone or somebody else."
quote:
Scalia's dissent for the court's conservatives — not including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who provided the swing vote — was scathing.
"The court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner," he said. "Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it."
The straw purchaser in the case was a former Virginia police officer who bought a Glock 19 handgun for his uncle in Pennsylvania. Both were legal gun owners. But the purchaser, Bruce James Abramski, filled out a federal form indicating that he was the "actual buyer" of the firearm.
His attorney, Richard Dietz, argued that a compromise reached in Congress decades ago was meant to focus only on the initial buyer. Even if it did intend to identify the ultimate purchaser, he said, Abramski didn't violate the law because his uncle was licensed to own guns.
LINK
This should remind everybody that our 2nd amendment rights are literally hanging on by a thread and being bitterly contested. This was only a 5-4 vote.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 6:51 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 6:45 pm to Sentrius
quote:
This should remind everybody that our 2nd amendment rights are literally hanging on by a thread and being bitterly contested. This was only a 5-4 vote.
The opponents of the 2nd Amendment never rest, despite the protestations of some misguided souls on this board.
I need to read more about the decision before commenting further.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 6:46 pm to Sentrius
Let us all remember come 2016 that if Hillary Clinton, or worse, gets to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices that tis goes the other way.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 6:48 pm to Sentrius
Scalia is right on with this:
quote:
"The court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner," he said. "Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it."
Posted on 6/16/14 at 6:56 pm to Sentrius
So if I wanted to buy a gun and give it to my kid, these guys think I should have my kid go through the background check process? Can I sell it to someone for $1 dollar instead of giving it to them to scoot around the rules? Is this the beginning of the end of private gun sales?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 7:14 pm to Sentrius
Serious question.... How can Righties claim that laws against straw purchases are violations of the 2nd Amendment on one hand, then blame the Obama administration for the deaths of those killed by guns purchased in fast and furious, an ATF operation which allowed illegal straw purchases?
In F&F you had the DOJ tell the ATF to allow the straw purchase of guns. Those straw purchases were illegal. Those purchases resulted in those guns being brought into Mexico killing people. Righties are furious, forgetting their mantra that gun laws don't work and criminals will get guns and that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and want Holders head for this. Yet they want to do away with the very laws they attack Holder for not enforcing.
Do you not see the inconsistency there? I mean if you got your way, there would be nothing stopping many many many more straw purchases with results far worse than F&F.
What am I missing here?
In F&F you had the DOJ tell the ATF to allow the straw purchase of guns. Those straw purchases were illegal. Those purchases resulted in those guns being brought into Mexico killing people. Righties are furious, forgetting their mantra that gun laws don't work and criminals will get guns and that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and want Holders head for this. Yet they want to do away with the very laws they attack Holder for not enforcing.
Do you not see the inconsistency there? I mean if you got your way, there would be nothing stopping many many many more straw purchases with results far worse than F&F.
What am I missing here?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 7:16 pm to Sentrius
quote:This seems like a wise, sane, prudent decision to me.
Supreme Court rules against 'Straw Purchasers' of Guns
Posted on 6/16/14 at 7:19 pm to Sentrius
Amazing how the words "shall not be infringed" are just forgotten. Just words written on a paper to some I guess.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 7:37 pm to Sentrius
This decision proves guns aren't truly private property.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 7:47 pm to Sentrius
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:14 pm to Sentrius
The Constitution is clear, no laws shall be passed infringing on the right to bear arms. We are doomed as the United States Supreme Court continues it's unabated path to destroy our rights.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:25 pm to Sentrius
This will totally stop illegal gun purchases. Now when some thug on the street tries to acquire a gun, he'll be damn sure to request the proper paperwork!
Unless of course he buys a black market weapon with the blessing of the ATF...
Unless of course he buys a black market weapon with the blessing of the ATF...
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:01 pm to Sentrius
quote:
This should remind everybody that our 2nd amendment rights are literally hanging on by a thread and being bitterly contested.
No they aren't. The identity of gun owners is tracked in any well regulated militia.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:55 pm to Sentrius
It's a rather silly decision.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:10 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Sentrius
This decision is just ridiculous.
Tom gives me the money to buy him a (name your firearm of choice/fear here). I buy it. I then gift it to him or sell it to him for $1 (depending on state laws). If you can't privately sell or gift a firearm in a given state, you just say you did the exchange in a state where it's legal and Congress can suck a dick.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 11:51 am to Sentrius
How the help can they prove you are a straw? Can you not buy a gun as a gift without putting the recipient on a federal list?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News