Legal Issues

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Anti-Gunners!

The front view of the Supreme Court building

The Supreme Court just made staying on the right side of the law a lot more difficult for gun owners. In a controversial decision, the high court ruled in favor of gun control groups and the Obama Administration. The decision settles the often-contradictory lower court rulings handed down by the Federal Appeals courts.

Justices Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in the majority were in the majority in which the court attempted to broaden the definition of a straw purchase.

Supreme Court Justices
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court voted to broaden the definition of straw purchase.

The case was based on a purchase by a former police officer. Bruce Abramski purchased a GLOCK handgun with a law enforcement discount in his home state of Virginia. While filling out ATF Form 4473, Bruce Abramski answered question 11a. “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.” stating he was the actual buyer.

The actual definition of a purchaser have the courts divided. For instance, the court allows a person to buy a firearm with the intention of giving it as a gift, or to buy it for the purposes of a raffle without being considered a straw purchase. Abramski’s case was different, however, in that the uncle—Bruce Abramski later transferred the firearm to—had sent him a check with GLOCK 19 written in the memo a few days before the actual firearm purchase.

Therefore, the issue at hand was whether the statement was material to a sale that would otherwise be lawful—neither the buyer nor uncle had any legal restrictions that would have prevented them from owning the GLOCK. The Obama Administration stated that Abramski did not act within the letter and spirit of the law, claiming the action was necessary to ensure accurate record keeping to later trace the weapon. However, Form 4473 is not supposed to be a weapon registration. It is merely a record of an over-the-counter firearm transaction with a secondary purpose of obtaining the necessary information for a background check.

Gun rights advocates charge the Administration’s position is a massive overreach. Their contention states this improperly defines a law (straw purchase) that is meant to prevent illegal purchases, or legal purchases that would then be handed over to individuals who could not legally purchase or possess the weapon, and applies it to two individuals who can legally purchase and own the firearm. It is not much of a stretch to say this is a backhanded attempt to weaken legal transfers under what the anti-gunners have dubbed the Gun Show Loophole.

Accordingly, legal scholars state the ruling is not an affront to the Second Amendment. In recent years, the Supreme Court has clarified other cases and laws, which has had the effect of broadening the definition of an individual’s right to bear arms—to which we have been grateful. However, this latest ruling is a defeat and clearly affirms that going forward, the transferee/buyer must disclose any intent to resell the firearm at the time of purchase.

Supreme Court BuildingDuring the original case and subsequent appeals, Abramski admitted he was the buyer and claimed he made it clear that he intended to sell the pistol to his uncle in Pennsylvania. He further claimed that he was instructed the transfer would be legal as long as his uncle received the firearm through an FFL and filled out the appropriate Form 4473—an action that was in fact completed days later. However, this fact seemed to have landed on deaf ears for the majority of the high court’s members. The Justices were not concerned with the entire process, but only focused on the narrow matter of intent when box 11a was checked.

The unfortunate ending to this story is a warning to all law-abiding gun owners. The current administration is bent on persecuting gun owners at any opportunity. Abramski was in fact suspected of other crimes that prompted the original investigation that led to straw purchase charge, but that does not mean that you and I are any safer from the anti-gunners in the future. While this was a rare victory in recent years against gun rights, we all need to tighten our defenses and support gun rights groups such as the NRA, NAGR, SAF and others.

What is your take on Supreme Court’s ruling? Share it with us in the comment section.

[dave]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (139)

  1. No offense but there is no constitutional law in the US. For example, the worthless fiat money called the Federal Reserve Note is Unconstitutional, as that document clearly states that All money be backed by Gold or Silver. So for 101 years our monetary system has been unconstitutional! And the sad reality is None of the Bill of Rights/Amendments exist today but only in the Myth federally educated children are taught to brainwash them into believing we ‘are free’. We are Not

  2. The “Reason” for the need as pointed out by the Administration, is not completely legal to begin with . That makes the entire case and decision so far off point it should have never even been considered by the high court. For example, lets say the Administration wants to provide these controls on firearms in the even they decide to force the owners to paint them pink. There is no justifiable, Constitutional reason for painting them pink so therefore the case itself is moot. There is no Constitutional right for the government to require a need to trace firearms. If there is, please show it to me. I challenge the Justices to qualify their decisions based upon a ‘reason’ which has no Constitutional authority. ALL LAWS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS ARE LEFT TO THE STATES.
    That is pretty difficult to misinterpret. Unless, of course, you are stupid or politically motivated rather than logical and reasonable. And I understand there is a lot of that going around lately.

  3. This is not an opinion. It is accurate information. So hopefully it will be construed as such. President Obama’s administration has violated the letter of the law so many times on so many different issues. Prosecuting this case and not prosecuting the Wall Street crooks, just as one of many examples, clearly illustrates the inability of the administration to even have a clue about priorities. They will prosecute pet peeves but not real, serious crime. What a bunch of losers.

  4. My apologies for a too quickly written comment. The remarks were to have been prefaced with reference to California laws.

    In CA, all handgun transfers must be processed through a licensed dealer, with few exceptions, so cannot be “gifted” freely. One of these exceptions is a gift between a child, parent, or grandparent (immediate family). In that case, there is a CA form (Report of Operation of Law or interfamilial Transfer) which must be filed with CA DOJ, but does not require a dealer. Transfers to all other relatives and friends, including uncles, fall under the usual transfer rules, and do need to go through a dealer. For the original 4473, a parent buying a gun as a gift for a child of the correct age, for example, would check “yes” in 11a, but must use their own funds (per 4473 instructions).

    As to the CA laws being convoluted, in ATF Publication 5300.5 (State Laws and Published Ordinances – Firearms), CA takes up 70 pages, where the entire book for all 50 states is only 480 pages!

    1. @ tl76: I will assume your most recent comment was addressing my response a few pages back in which I corrected some of your inaccuracies regarding gun purchase and transfer laws. Based on your latest post I now understand your predicament more clearly.

      Thank you for taking the time to clarify. However, though your situation is very interesting, I cannot speak on issues regarding the gun laws of foreign countries. In my country and region, our citizens vote to elect as many leaders that believe in upholding and defending gun rights per our Constitution.

      If you are secretly pro-gun, I highly encourage you to defect to our country. You won’t regret it. Be well.

  5. I ACTUALLY HAVE NO BEEFS OR QUARRELS ABOUT THIS RULING. YOU MUST BE THE INTENDED OWNER WHEN TRYING TO BUY A GUN.. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS… EVEN IF ITS A GIFT.. TAKE THE PERSON WITH YOU TO THE STORE, HAVE THEM FILL OUT THE FORM AS REQUIRED AND JUST PAY FOR THE GIFT. I DONT LIKE THE IDEA OF SOMEONE ATTEMPTING TO BUY A GUN FOR SOMEONE ELSE WITHOUT THAT SOMEONE HAVING A BACKGROUND CHECK.. AND IM AS PRO-GUN AS CAN BE..

    1. Chris Dublynn, you are WRONG and also DANGEROUSLY WRONG.

      You are WRONG because there is nothing in the law nor this Court’s ruling that states one “MUST BE THE INTENDED OWNER WHEN TRYING TO BUY A GUN”. And clearly there are “IFS ANDS OR BUTS…” because I can, and have, lawfully purchased many guns as gifts and will continue to do so legally under the current law.

      But more importantly you are DANGEROUSLY WRONG because you have just advised people to break the law with a straw purchase by recommending that, “EVEN IF ITS A GIFT.. TAKE THE PERSON WITH YOU TO THE STORE, HAVE THEM FILL OUT THE FORM AS REQUIRED AND JUST PAY FOR THE GIFT”.

      People please do not follow this poor advice. As a law enforcement agent with over 32 years of service (and counting), I can assure you a transaction done in this manner is unlawful. Per the ATF Form 4473 you MUST be the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on the form”, not the “THE INTENDED OWNER” as Chris Dublynn stated.

      What you lawfully choose to do with that gun after you purchase it is no one’s business; this includes giving it away, raffling it off, donating it, or selling it to anyone else you please as long as you do not knowingly transfer it to a prohibited possessor.

      Another important consideration for why such a flawed gifting idea is unlawful: An adult can lawfully gift a minor child a handgun or rifle of which may be lawfully possessed and operated by said minor on their own private land without adult supervision and on public land with adult supervision. However, if an adult wanting to gift a gun to a minor did attempt to subscribe to such poor advice by actually bringing the minor in to fill out ATF paperwork, that would not only land them in jail for contributing to the delinquency of that minor, but also give that child their first felony charge for attempting to purchase a gun under age.

      Minors can’t buy guns, but they may lawfully own them. I think you need to rethink your dangerously flawed opinion. And for that matter withdraw your self-proclamation as “pro-gun” until you earn that right with a bit more study.

  6. Need to get rid of Obama and elect enough republicans to take over the Senate. Then change the make up of the Supreme Court.

    1. In reply to “Need to get rid of Obama and elect enough republicans to take over the Senate. Then change the make up of the Supreme Court.”
      Well he will be goon at the next presidential election, at the latest!
      As for the rest…..well that remains to be seen. I believe pigs have a better chance of flying.
      Weather you agree with Supreme courts decisions or not, its the process we adhere to which separates us from the remainder of the animal kingdom. And until we as Americans take up arms this will not change in the foreseeable future. Sheeple don’t lead they follow as the name implies.
      Oh and as the name implies, I am a LIBERAL and among other things believe in the liberal distribution of firearms, to all, yes to all! The criminals already have guns. An armed society is a civil society.

  7. What really happened in the Abramski case? I’ve been reading numerous repeat questions, many of which have already been answered by me in previous comments. I know 8 pages of commentary is a lot to read through so I will sum up as many answers here as possible.

    Most of Bruce Abramski’s case information is in the public domain now so I am not violating the Privacy Act or agency policy with anything I release here. There is much more to his case than I can disclose here, but hopefully this brief overview will put things into perspective:

    Bruce Abramski was a rookie officer that had been terminated after an investigation into money that had gone missing during a call he’d been on. He was let go as a condition violation of his work probation. No charges were filed and he was even allowed to draw unemployment. Eventually that ran out and he went into debt and defaulted on his mortgage. He and his wife separated.

    Shortly after his savings ran out a bank robbery took place. $4000 was taken and there was very compelling evidence against Abramski. His wife had worked at a bank indicating he had inside information. A previous partner revealed that once while back on patrol Ambramski had mentioned to him how a particular bank they’d passed by would be easy to hit.

    On the day of the robbery Ambramski just happened to test drive the exact model and color of truck that was used to rob the bank in question. Fellow officers also ID’ed security footage of the masked individual as having the same jacket, features, muscular build, walk, and was carrying a distinct gun/duty bag that a fellow officer had gifted Abramski as a rookie; a bag of which they were known to usually buy straight out of the police academy.

    Days after the robbery a penniless Abramski was all of a sudden able to afford the purchase of approximately $2000 in various guns. One of those guns was a Glock for his father-in-law. All paid for in $20 dollar bills from a bank’s zipper pouch.

    Later under pressure from the FBI and sheriff’s investigation into the robbery, Abramski confided in his best friend, who was also an officer, that he had nothing left to lose and planned on killing other officers from his old department as well as some sheriff’s deputies that had made fun of him during an unrelated call. The officer friend reported this, which in turn prompted the FBI to step up their investigation and execute a search warrant on Abramski’s home. It was at this time the FBI discovered the receipt for the Glock Abramski purchased for his father-in-law.

    A warrant was issued and Abramski turned himself in. I’ll spare the details but suffice it to say several arrests, hearings, bails, and releases occurred over the following months. Eventually the bulk of the charges were dismissed because the FBI failed to release evidence to the sheriff’s office which hindered their ability to proceed with a prosecution.

    The only charge that remained was the FBI’s gun straw purchase charge. Abramski’s family hired him an attorney and off the case went to the Supreme Court.

    So I’m just going to say it since no one else will. I think they let Abramski get away with bank robbery so there would be no distractions as they orchestrated and steered this anti-gun charge towards the Supreme Court. There was insurmountable evidence of a bank robbery and all they go for is a lesser weapons charge? Why not both?

    A federal prosecutor has the authority to decline prosecutions they feel are not significant enough to merit prosecution in federal court. But to swap the greater crime of bank robbery for the lesser gun crime appears suspiciously political to me.

    Many civilians are unaware that unlike state and local courts, we (federal agents) are allowed to sit in the courtroom and assist with the prosecution during trials in federal court even if we are also going to provide testimony at some point. The robbery had to come up as part of the affiant’s testimony for the search warrant. More than likely the affiant of the warrant was also the case agent sitting through most of the trial. So what I don’t understand is how this agent could explain the justification for withholding evidence that dropped the bank robbery charges in lieu of a simple gun charge. If not derelict, it at least had to be embarrassingly obvious to all the court officers.

    Federal prosecutors can also refer cases for state prosecution and turn over their evidence, but they opted to not do that either. So again, the focus seems to be heavily bent on getting this gun charge up to the Supreme Court and letting everything else fall by the wayside.

    Regardless, there has been much displaced blame in these forums about this case, but it should be directed squarely at Abramski and his attorney for selfishly forcing the issue upon the Supreme Court once he knew he was guilty. Abramski accepted the check for payment from his father-in-law prior to stepping foot into that gun store. So he violated the law as it is written and even under the examples provided in the ATF Form 4473’s instructions that are provided to everyone.

    To Ambramski’s credit he initially did not think he was breaking the law as he was very forthright about what he was doing and even told the counter clerk it was for is father-in-law. That clerk still encouraged Ambramski that it was okay under these circumstances to mark on the ATF Form 4473 that he was the purchaser. Later Ambramski even went so far as to legally use another FFL to properly transfer the gun to his father-in-law. But alas, many are also unaware that some gun laws are written in such a way that a federal prosecutor does not have to prove you knowingly broke the law, only that you did break the law. And that is what happened here.

    Simply put it is unlawful to purchase a gun for another person with their funds. It was that way prior to the Supreme Court’s decision and it is still the same after they rendered this recent decision. Not one thing has changed about the law after the Courts ruling. I actually laugh because the liberals think they’ve won something here. I say let them think that, and enjoy our quiet joke amongst ourselves.

    As for other questions, I will repost some of my answers: Some commenters have stated they feel Abramski’s use of his law enforcement discount was unethical or somehow illegal.

    I quite often use my law enforcement discount when purchasing firearms and gear. These discounts are offered in many different ways, but primarily they are either an overall LEA discount offered by the gun shop or a dealer direct LEA discount authorized by (most commonly) Glock and Smith & Wesson.

    To qualify for the discount we either show our LEA credentials at the point of purchase, or if it is an Internet purchase that will be shipped to an FFL, we are allowed to fax or email a scanned copy of our official LEA I.D./Badge and a copy of our driver license into the Internet dealer. Manny online outlets keep a copy on file so we don’t have to keep sending it in with each purchase.

    Now to address these comments… once the purchase is made, there is nothing legally, ethically, or fraudulently wrong with gifting or later selling the purchase to another person. The gun dealer could care less, likewise Glock and Smith & Wesson could care less. There is no contingent stipulating the weapons must be used for official duty only.

    The bottom line is these are private companies offering a discount to make a sale and to ensure their brand remains relevant and associated in good standing with law enforcement. There were never any strings attached.

    Some of you had questions about lawful gun purchases and transfers so I commented as follows:

    I am an LEA and can assure others here of the following: You may buy a gun and later sell it or give it as a gift to ANY ONE you please (not just family). However, they must reside in the same state as the gun originally purchased or resides. They may not be a prohibited possessor (felon), but you are under no obligation to do a background check to find out either. They must meet that states age requirements. And last – some states do require the gun to be formally transferred via an FFL whether resold or gifted, so check your local laws.

    One commenter gave bad advice stating you must ship guns through an FFL unless the gun manufacturer sends you a shipping label. That was way off and so I provided the correct advice:

    A person can use the U.S. Mail to ship a shotgun or rifle to any person as long as it is within the same state. No FFL dealer is necessary. It is always unlawful to ship a handgun to anyone through the U.S. Mail – they will only accept shotguns and rifles. However, it is lawful to ship any gun (handguns, shotguns, and rifles) through any contract carrier such as UPS or FedEx. But again, it must be to another individual within the same state. Again, no FFL dealer is required to do this.

    However, in all cases when shipping out of state you must ship the firearm to an FFL dealer in the receiving state for the person to pick up. The same carrier rules apply – U.S. Mail will only accept and ship shotguns and rifles whereas contract carriers can ship handguns as well as shotguns and rifles to FFLs outside your state.

    Contrary to what was said, no “gun manufacturer mailing label” is ever required to ship a gun.

  8. I can sympthasize with your anger. But talk of cross-hairs without a political reference is just a little over the top . And just the kind of thing that make rational people carry firearms. The Hiroshima reference was a metaphor?? I guess so, or at least hope so

  9. It was a reference to the wording in the 2nd “shall NOT be infringed’. Point was that it has become way too easy to become a felon ie. not making child support payments or being involved in a domestic violence case (a misdemeanor) The first has nothing to do with firearms but would remove your LEGAL ability to possess firearms in some states. And the Officer involved with the recent Supreme Court case should now be a Convicted Felon and devoid of his right to vote & right to protect himself and or family with a firearm…sucks to be him!!. Hope this explains where I was coming from.

  10. The loop holes are starting to come out. You will never stop the wrong people from getting what they want but you will spend millions trying!

  11. So does this apply to a gun that would be purchased for your spouse or children? What if i am the sole income provider in the household?

  12. Their is where you are wrong when your government starts purchasing million of rounds to prepair for a economic collapse. You are in nazi germany. Oh and dont forget trying to take legally owned weapons from law abiding citizens.

  13. It is obvious that the persons involved in the case – the officer and his relative had no intention of violating the law, and the officer facilitated this transfer in good faith, since knowing the person who funded the purchase a good portion of his lifetime. To call this a straw purchase is stretching the definition beyond recognizable limits. The officer used his law enforcement position to purchase the firearm at a discount, and the other man – his relative – funded the purchase. Unless the party the Glock was delivered to could not legally purchase or posess the weapon this is not a straw man purchase. The two principals were known to each other, and it is obvious the only thing that was done here was the LEO endorsement purchase was done to get a substantive cost savings. There was no criminal activity here, but since this is the supreme court no matter how wrong this decision is it will stand.

    Another case of legislating from the bench, and it is an unconstitutional abuse of power. No surprise coming from this government.

  14. What is the law about selling a handgun to a relative that lives in another state? How would I go about making that happen without running afoul of the law?

  15. this man did NOTHING wrong…the only ones WRONG in this case are the ignorant and obviously under educated judges in the supreme court….these judges were PAID FOR by the obozo admin…these damn politicians don’t seem to have a clue about our constitution….it says our gun rights as written “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”….FIRE ALL OF THESE MORONS…

  16. “Shall not be infringed”! If both men were legal to own firearms, both the officer who bought this gun, and the person who ultimately ended up with the Glock, there is no problem. Any government official who would be against this purchase and later transfer to a legal relative, is someone who wants to know, for whatever nafarious reason, where EVERY gun in the country is, so they can confiscate it later. Bad SCOTUS decision!

  17. Okay, lets step back a second and see what the problem is.. While most feel the Gov is intruding on your rights, they are in fact protecting your rights. If these rules were not in place anyone who wanted to could buy up enough guns and form an army of their own.
    Something like a Black/White/Hispanic/Asian gang can and will do..
    I know guns don’t kill people, people do…
    The question is how do we stop that..The gun violence .. For many of the posts I see on the internet, they offer no solution other than arming themselves.. I don’t know about you but I don’t think we need to live that way….

    This is not Russia, nor Nazi Germany.. The paranoia is over the top..

    As for the Officer, he knew what he was doing was wrong.. his choice he lost.. big time..

    1. Sorry, don’t have the time to give you an honest history lesson here, but since you brought up Russia and Nazi Germany, maybe you should make an effort to learn why and how all those people died there from State sponsored oppression, instead of taking the liberal, socialist propaganda view you obviously were brought up and believe as historical fact, it is incorrect

    2. The officer knew he was doing wrong?

      Obviously a comment made before reading the article.

  18. The plain fact is we will all be criminals soon enough. We won’t be able to put our feet on the floor when getting out of bed in the morning without breaking another law. It is the way of The State. So be it. Saw it all coming 22 years ago when N.J. first started banning guns. The line is being drawn and either one chooses to live Free or be a Slave, we will all see then….

  19. All politicians,judges,military,law enforcement,are sworn in to uphold the constitution and bil of rights,why is it when they vote to change something in the constitution or pass a bill to add something to it,they are not fired,can somebody explain this to me

  20. All this talk about taking this country back. Ready when you guys are. The fight will be long and hard. We did it before we can do it again. 3%er

  21. My only gripe with Mr. Abramski’s actions is that he was using his police discount to get the firearm. In my book, that’s intentional dishonesty. And from a police office, that’s embarrassing.

    What I want to know is how and why was this ever investigated? Whose business is it if I buy a gun and sell it a few days later? Who has never bought something then later realized they were being impulsive and couldn’t afford their purchase? Who would have thought such an action would trigger an investigation…?

  22. As a lifetime resident of the state of Virginia and a gun owner, I can assure you that I personally have bought many guns over the years and resold them legally and safely without a question. I have checked that same box every time, but if I then go out and put a box or two through a new sidearm and decide that I did not like it, I know how to sell it legally as well. No matter who is right or wrong, or whether it is infringing upon our 2nd Amendment rights, the fact of the matter is that Bruce lied when he checked that box. This is exactly what I try to teach my children about honesty-If you lie, there is no two ways about it, you are dishonest. He knew full well what he was doing when he did it, and possibly the repercussions involved.

  23. I am sick of a Government made up of supposedly experts on Constitutional law but seem to ignore why the second amendment was made and that is to give We The People the tools necessary to get rid of a corrupt and too powerful Government and that the Government shall not interfere with the right to bear arms! The founding fathers are waiting to see if we are worthy of what they gave us!

  24. THE ANTI-GUN REGIME WILL ATTACK ANY TYPE OF MICROBIONC ERROR YOU MAY MAKE……. THEY HAVE ALL THEIR POLITICIANS & ATTORNEYS TO SPEAK FOR THEM ! ALL WE CAN DO IS TO MAINTAIN OUR COOLS AND KEEP THINGS WITHIN THE LAW. HAVE HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR 30 YEARS IT’S A CONSTANT BATTLE BUT NO BODY, AND I MEAN “NO BODY” WILL TURN AMERICA INTO A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT AND DISARM THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS !…… “NOBODY” !!!!!

  25. Those 5 Justices, by so voting in their ruling in this case, confessed to treason, by infringing on both the officer’s and his uncle’s gun purchase / ownership rights, and by doing so, placed themselves in my crosshairs, for as a retired Army NCO, my oath of enlistment, which has never been rescinded when I left active duty, states in part “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC”. Time to flatten DC like Hiroshima and start over !

  26. And you will NOT see anyone do a thing. The sheeple don’t care. And now the gentleman who completed this straw purchase will have to give up ALL his guns, caus he is now a Federal Felon, and never vote again, unless he can get a Presidential pardon. Such is life.And I was under the impression that the 2nd amendment, “…..shall not be infringed” well maybe just a little!!

  27. When we allow Government to dictate who what when where and why you can or cant buy a gun or sell a fire arm we are in deep shit. that is the bottom line. I live in California one of rhe states leading the Social cry for banning the sales of firearms and ammo etc. It’s a crock of horse manuer, but if people dont wake up too whats really going on, they are coming to disarm the American citizens from owning firearms. If you keep thinking this is not going to happen you may as well just give them up now.
    Voting and lobying is only going to slow the inevitable down. the demographics have changed while the Gun owners in America allowed the Governement beginning in the late 60’s to start with the Gun restrictions that were set out to keep the minority in the country from baring arms, and you probably agreed with it at the time is now coming back to bite you all in the ass. The biggest joke is that thier is no way in hell that you can believe infringing on our second ammendment rights is in the name of public safety.
    No one is willing to water the tree of liberty. We need a new Goverment, The tyranical Government the four fathers have warnded us about is now coming out in the open. Their saying we dont give a shit about your consitutiuonal rights and we are taking your guns. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to know what happens next. The Second Amendment is rated E for everyone.
    White America was to busy worried about blacks and mexicans having firearms and marching down the streets of Oakland like the black panther did, which you should have been cheering for in support of them exercising their constitutional right to do so. Instead ran out and voted federal codes statutes and regulations to prevent anyone from doing that. Every stupid Gun law and restriction has been racially motivated and now every one is going to pay the piper for it.
    Unless we wake up and remember United we stand, We the people. or divided we fall, you just bend over and give them your guns, after the take away the second ammendant this Country is threw.

  28. Thank goodness they fixed this “loophole’ so that we don’t become murderers and thieves like Bruce Abramski and his uncle did….

    How ridiculous that they even mention the “spirit of the law”… The “spirit of the law” is to prevent someone from purchasing a firearm for a “prohibited possessor”; not to stop someone legally allowed to own a gun from selling it to someone else that is legally allowed to own a gun.

  29. The kink in all this is the uncle sent a check prior to the officer purchasing the firearm. That shows intent. That makesd it a so called straw purchase.
    Had the officer bought the firearm then siold it to his uncle afterwards I think it would be a whole different set of circumstances. Yes the government is becoming more intrusive in our lives. Yes they are dictating more and more to us. Yes there are govermnent abuses I think to our rights. But until the American people start voting these I know more than you so let me TELL you what you need to do out of office we will continue down this path. Don’t complain if you don’t vote. Remember the GCA of 1968 was given to us by a democrat. Johnson signed it in to law. Most of you I’m sure don’t remember but before that law we could order firearms out of magazines and have them mailed to your house. Yes that’s right. The same law that gave us the 4473 Firearm’s Transaction Record.

    1. I agree with the above writer, we have to, have to vote. I am old enough to remember the 1968 signing, not old enough to understand, but remember my dad being really upset. We have so many major issues going on in this country, and a lying administration along with a criminal Attorney General. Men, we have to watch out for ourselves and obey the laws as we understand them, until we can get control of the Senate and the White House so the POTUS can appointment some commen sense justices. These liberal justices will just have to be chalked up to our not voting when BO won election. Let’s NEVER make the same mistake again. God Bless America

    2. The problem wasn’t that he gave him a check, it’s that he put “Glock 19” in the memo. Without the memo there would have been no evidence that the money was intended for the purchase of the Glock. My suggestion is to pay cash, and if you make the purchase any other way then you leave yourself open for government scrutiny and another way to trace the purchase back to you. There’s always a way to make thing work in your favor. In other works cover your ass no one else will.

  30. There are limited reasons for disarming an entire country. I don,t think there concerned with our safety. so maybe next they will pull every ones teeth,or worse. Hope I did not give any one any ideas they have not all ready thought of. Staying casual and rocken in the USA!!!!!!

  31. It seems to me the thing to do on form 4473 is what most of our so called elected official do. lie. They have no problem doing so however it is called misspeaking instead of what it is lying.

  32. Ok
    Look
    If I go into a Gunstore and purchase a firearm with my own money and after that purchase I have every right legally to then either give it as a gift to whomever I please or for that matter to sell it to whomever I please inside the borders of the State that I live in as long as the the person I’m gifting it to or selling it to is legally allowed to own firearm without going through an FFL If I want to give or sell said firearm outside of my State I must transfer it through an FFL or I’m in violation of the Law Via the 1968 gun
    control act
    A person is also not allowed to ship a firearm without going through an FFL unless the gun manufacturer sends you a shipping label
    Transporting any firearm across State lines to give or sell without an FFL transfer is a crime and a violation of the Law
    Receiving money from anyone to purchase a firearm for them in their behalf is a violation of the Law that is a Straw purchase
    If you go into a Gunstore and purchase a firearm with your own money for you and then later decide to sell it you can sell it to whoever you want in your home State face to face without going through an FFL they don’t have to fill out a form 4473 it is called a person to person sale it is perfectly legal via the 1968 gun control act as long as they can legally own a firearm
    It is perfectly legal to go into a gun store and purchase a firearm as a gift for someone as long as they are legally allowed to own a firearm
    Know the Law and follow it
    Don’t agree with it or like it Lobby to have it changed

    1. I said several years ago EVERYONE should deny, defy, and not comply with any unconstitutional law, E.O., mandate, agency rule. It is time for some pretty significant civil disobedience. People better close their pension and retirement accounts. That is in the plans for the near future; CONFISCATION!!!!! Stonewall on taxes to the criminal IRS, begin work stoppages. And for God’s sake do NOT join the Obama military. They will make you be a target for the muslims, take away your rights and religion, and then cut your pension and healthcare. Why serve this government? Stay out of military and join up with citizens, patriots, true Americans. If you do join remember, your oath is to America, the Constitution, and your fellow American, NOT this stinking government. But first, prepare to survive and fight. Purchase your materials, educate, be informed, learn, join, communicate. There is no solution in politics. Both parties are corrupt to the core. They are not going to do anything for you or me.99% dems. are criminals, traitors and murderers. 85-90% of GOP are corrupt and enable the dems.

    2. @ Jeremy: A period from time-to-time at the end of your sentences would have been nice. You are correct about everything you listed except the part about shipping.

      You wrote, “A person is also not allowed to ship a firearm without going through an FFL unless the gun manufacturer sends you a shipping label”. You were way off on this one.

      The correct answer is: A person can use the U.S. Mail to ship a shotgun or rifle to any person as long as it is within the same state. No FFL dealer is necessary. It is always unlawful to ship a handgun to anyone through the U.S. Mail – they will only accept shotguns and rifles. However, it is lawful to ship any gun (handguns, shotguns, and rifles) through a contract carrier such as UPS or FedEx. But again, it must be to another individual within the same state. Again, no FFL dealer is required to do this.

      However, in all cases when shipping out of state you must ship the firearm to an FFL dealer in the receiving state for the person to pick up. The same carrier rules apply – U.S. Mail will only accept and ship shotguns and rifles whereas contract carriers can ship handguns as well as shotguns and rifles to FFLs outside you state.

      Contrary to what you said, no “gun manufacturer mailing label” is ever required to ship a gun.

  33. We are unfortunate to have such miserable leaders running our country.Anything they can use to disarm or make it impossible to own a firearm they will do,even if they break the law to do it.our guns are our right to own and they are making it harder to get them.the obama care mess is exactly that a illegal mess and its unconstatutional but they forced it on us anyway.only we can take the trash out and put in better that is if we want our country back.

  34. We dont live in America Anymore, folks, but there’s no where left to go.

    I’m sad for the sacrifices of our forefathers, the twisted left is turning the US into “FRANCE”.

    God help us all.

  35. OK so more unconstitutional activity. Who gives a sh**. Absolutely NO legislating is going to fix these problems. Until these tyrants are in fear they will continue to rule as they see fit. Fear had pushed the Patriot act NDAA and illegal ears around the globe. So apparently we are now an emotionally reactive country. Sense and reason are gone. So I will continue to keeps my weapons and be a responsible adult. I’ll be damned if I let some other human tell me how to live if I my choices don’t harm another.

  36. To notsofast SCOTUS.
    I could not have expressed my opinion ( and slot of facts as well ) ANY BETTER, THOROUGHLY NOR WELL WORDED! AMEN to you and nice to see other TRUE AMERICANS staying diligent as well as spending the extra time needed to keep up w/ all of the b.s they hope to tire us from to stay EDUCATED.

  37. I served in the U.S Marines. I am a shame that I served for the freedom of our country. We have no freedom. We are slaves of the few extreme left of this country. America when are you going to wake up. I am your soldier I am ready to defend the Constitution.

    1. Me too. So now we who are willing have to do it. First contact, form up, and prepare. So far I have not seen anyone or any group do crap.

    2. What a load of crap! Seriously? We have NO freedom?

      If you lost ANY freedom, blame that mental midget George W. Bush and his poorly named ‘Patriot Act’.

      Stop watching FOX news. Are you aware of two (2) separate studies that show FOX viewers are LESS INFORMED than people who watch NO NEWS? It’s true – look it up.

  38. Now we know that immediately selling a firearm purchased through a dealer.is illegal. The next “clarification” will deal with how long we must keep that firearm before it is legal to sell it. Government control is nothing if not very methodical.

  39. It just amazes me to see how many people can’t spell, don’t understand grammar, and don’t know how to construct a sentence. Come on folks….learn the difference between their, there, and they’re. How about starting with to and too?
    Oh never mind……it would take to long, not too mention to much of there time. Maybe it’s there’re parents fault.

    1. America and the world are going to hell with the traitor in the White House attacking patriots, Christians, conservatives, enabling Islam to infiltrate America, etc., and YOU have to comment on spelling. I prefer proper spelling and sentence structure too, but it is stupid on your part to deny others a chance to comment because of a lack of education. If some filthy muslim was afixin to chop yore hed auf, and “Billy Bob” cud shute him ded wood you stop him from killin the muslem caws he cud not spell? Maybe you can spell and create a proper sentence, but you are not worth a stinking pile of crap. Dave, you are just stupid and hopeless.
      Shut the hell up and do something to help fight the government, Islam and the communists.

    2. @Dave: In Re: you’re last centence… HaHaHa! Love it! Thanks for lightening up the atmosphere around here!

    3. I empathize with you Dave. The ignorance on this site is stunning. No wonder some of these people feel tread upon – they are missing critical communication skills. Then there’s the outright racism and the blind attribution to President Obama for every little infraction that someone gets cited for, every nuanced news release presumes Obama personally had his hand on it. It’s shameful.

      I try to remember when posting here that some of their tri-cornered hats may be several sizes too small, thus negatively affecting their mental acuity. Many were not too sharp to begin with.

  40. Gun Control has never been about guns. Only control.
    These people want to make it illegal to hand your firearms down to your children. As a gift or as inheritance.
    Guns have never been the issue.

    Years ago you could buy a Swiss Solothurn or Finnish Lahti 20mm anti-tank rifle through the MAIL, and it would b delivered complete with ammunition, to your door, by the US Post.
    You could buy a Browning Machine Gun, nearly anything.
    Through the MAIL, and you didn’t have to be an adult to do it either.
    Did we have all these problems back then?
    No.

    You didn’t see kids running around killing people.
    The problem today is MORAL-SOCIETAL DECAY.
    Hollywood promotes sex, drugs, violence and criminality of all sorts.
    Video games are so violent they need to be rated for content.
    Rolling Stone Magazine even glamorized one of the Boston Bombers!

    We as parents allow the xbox to be a babysitter, movies and games so violent and graphic kids shouldn’t be allowed to play or watch.

    A good example is Elliot Rodgers.

    That kid had the world by the keester, his parents gave him everything he wanted.
    But not what he needed.
    Discipline.
    After being coddled his entire life, he had a melt-down and killed people.
    Why?

    True selfishness.

    His spoiled kid feelings were hurt.
    Because women didn’t just drop their pants at the mere sight of him.

    Instant gratification.

    It didn’t help that they (his parents) caved to pretty much whatever he wanted. A new BMW for a teenagers car for example? God knows what else.

    Fact is though, Elliot Rodgers parents were part of the problem. They (being rich, liberal filmmakers) coddled and spoiled him, gave him whatever he wanted and taught him liberal values.

    Hopped him up on drugs to control his outbursts.

    When he finally found out the world (and women) were not going to bow down and kiss his doo-pa (or fall all over themselves trying to have sex with him) His thin glass ego was shattered, by women saying “No”.
    His temper tantrum in reply was lethal.

    Moral-Societal Decay.
    And complacency.

  41. The real problem here is that they knowingly and admittedly refer to the form 4473 as a registration/tracking system. If this form is NOT supposed to be used as such, then why is it? We should be furious. I guess I’m the only one.

    1. Nope, @AD, you’re NOT the only PO’d person reading this. Seems that they naturally assume the 4473 form IS exactly what you called it… a registration/tracking system. And we let them get away with it!

    2. that is why MANY Americans buy their weapons “off the grid”. do you really think that when you fill out a form to purchase a deadly weapon Big Brother doesn’t want to know? Part of the reason only criminals will have guns..the way things are going.

  42. Let’s not over react–this is hardly the death knell of the Second Amendment. BATF is rightly sensitive about straw purchases, which on paper this would appear to be. The rules are tight for a reason and they need to be enforced the same way. We can argue about the facts of the case and fibrillate about the ramifications, but frankly I’m down with a law designed to prevent some guy with a TX ID buying a dozen AK-47s in a Houston gun shop and handing them over to some cartel goons in a pickup out front.

  43. Here in Arizona you can buy and sell guns to whomever you wish so long as you don;t knowingly sell it to a felon or a minor. Again, that question (should) be asked upon sale, and any leagl gun owner is naturally going to be cautious about whom they sell to. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would advertise a gun for sale, then give out their address to invite potential criminals to “come and get it”. Therefore sales are best conducted in a public area (like a parking lot) or even at a gun store, but it”s NOT required to do so. Further, you aren’t required to provide a bill of sale or even ask if the buyer is prohibited from purchase. Why? Because selling a gun isn’t illegal, and private individuals don’t have the means to do background checks anyway… so the question is ridiculous because any criminal seeking to purchase a gun would simply lie and say they aren’t a felon. duh.
    Therefore, the prohibited person that attempts to buy a gun is the criminal, not the seller. If someone breaks the law that’s their problem, not the seller’s.
    Also, in this particular case, those that state this SCOTUS decision won’t affect the rest of us are wrong. If question 11a is taken at face value, then you will not be permitted to sell your gun (the next day, month, year or decade) after you buy it, without breaking the law… because you stated YOU were the purchaser. Therefore, with this new decision, any intent to sell or transfer that gun to someone else becomes relevant, regardless of (when) that sale or transfer actually happen.
    So now it’s trick question. Can you honestly state that you have no intention of ever selling or transfereing that gun? How will you explain its absence if the government can use the BATFE form to track your weapon/s, and they decide to come looking for it? Unless you die and it goes to probate or an heir, you’d better have it, or they’ll claim you lied on the form and seize ALL your guns, and make YOU a restricted felon. This is great big GOTCH’YA for Obama and his ilk. Confiscation won’t happen overnight, it’ll be a slow methodical stream of bogus legislation. loopholes, clauses, fuzzy logic, and misleading language that will erode our Rights… followed by absurd SCOTUS decisions (like this one) that will ultimately cause a weary public to disarm themselves rather than contend with all the nutty regulations, financial liability, insurance fees, IRS reporting, legal paperwork, the potential for incarceration without due process, and any other (yet to be dreamed- up) consequences of gun ownership.
    Think it can’t or won’t happen? Only if we continue to ignore the red flags like this (5:4) decision, and dismiss the ever-tightening noose of anti-gun legislation as meaningless to the rest of us.
    Over our dead bodies and right under the noses of our grandchildren, after they’ve been thoroughly neutered and brainwashed by the Secular Progressive controlled Public Education System and the Liberal bias mass media.. hell yes it can happen! It already is.
    Just wait till the military reveals it has directed energy weapons… aka “ray guns”. Do ya think they’ll let us have any new guns if they’re so worried about the old ones? The laws we make today will have far reaching consequences in the next 30+ years, and we need to be aware of that when we allow them to restrict our Rights and limit the means by which we can defend ourselves.

  44. Gun laws are indeed convoluted, but a couple of points –

    From the article:

    ” For instance, the court allows a person to buy a firearm with the intention of giving it as a gift,”

    This is only true if the gift is in the immediate family (parents, siblings) and is paid for by the gift giver with their own funds. So, uncles do not count. BATF is pretty sensitive when it comes to straw purchases, and has sent numerous bulletins to dealers detailing the issue.

    In my view, the gun dealer should have asked what the story was, and guided the purchaser accordingly. If the dealer thought that it was indeed a straw purchase, then the purchase should have been refused. If the gun was being purchased with the uncle’s check, as a dealer, I would likely have advised the buyer to have his uncle buy the gun himself. It sounds as if Mr. Abramski was possibly set up by the dealer, since the BATF advises dealers to refuse the sale if they think it is a straw purchase.

    Mr. Abramski, however, was correct in that it is perfectly legal for him to purchase the gun and then sell it to anyone through a licensed dealer. Why this case was elevated to the Supreme Court is strange, but I doubt that the ruling will have much effect on gun ownership.

    1. @ tl76. Wrong. It is so frustrating when I read others giving bad advice as if they are an authority. I am an LEO and can assure others here of the following: You my buy a gun and give it as a gift to ANY ONE you please (not just family). However, they must reside in the same state as the gun originally purchased. They may not be a prohibited possessor (Felon). They must meet that states age requirements. And last – some states require the gun to be formally transferred via an FFL whether resold or gifted.

  45. Like putting grease only at the beginning of the skid with a little push the whole bar of the skid will be greased. They will use this victory and take it completely out of context enforcing illegally arms ownership. All a progressive feel they need is a little leaven leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

  46. The supreme court ruling on so called straw purchases isn’t surprising. Obama has used ,what should be an independent agency (IRS,The Center for Disease Control,and the Supreme Court) which is illegal.In California the Democrats have released thousands of criminals,and like most States bordering Mexico,are flooded with criminals crossing the border illegally,although here our Gov. is given them drivers lic. and so they aren’t left out of obamacare the dem.s want to allow them to sign up for that. To make matters worse the citizens of this country has never been vulnerable as they are now,thanks to Obama giving 5 terrorists back. Obamas arrogance and his display of his incompetence and spineless leadership has put us all in danger. Those who vote democrat have shown their utter ignorance and will steer us into a 3rd world country.

  47. If the law abiding per can’t and leave it to his or her kids….. then this not a free land at all……….!!!!!!

  48. I think that the x policeman knows the law, but did not realize he was braking it . Even after explained it was for his uncle. I also don’t think he should be charged with a crime. like some criminal. When there are real criminals are out there doing allot worse things then that. I am sure Mr A did not mean no harm to anyone!!!!!

    1. It’s not a matter of harm. It’s a matter of reading and understanding the letter of the law.The government doesn’t want you to sell or give your firearms to anyone. They want to know we’re they are at all times. It makes it easier to find them when they decide to take them from you. That’s why they hate the fact that you can build your own.

  49. It is obvious the gentlemen both knowingly broke a law, it is also obvious that the law went out of its way to prove and comvict them. I think this is another sign to all who value their rights to stay aware and do what you can to protect and preserve our rights by obeying the law, and letting your legislators know how you feel about things like this, true it is a waste of time to pursue this trivial matter, but it also shows us how serious they are about taking away our rights and that we should be equally serious about keeping them. Know your gun laws, protect your rights, and show these right theives that they are messing with Americans and put them in their place legally! We have to play by the rules, or change them like they did! Impeach/vote them out and donate wherever you can to help change the tide to our side!

    1. Obvious that he broke the law? You’re nuts. The line states, “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?” He is.

      if they want to know if he will ever sell the gun again in his entire life under legal circumstances then they need a question for that. Regardless of his intent to sell the gun to another person in advance of purchase, it was done so legally with another transfer form. The question asks if HE is the purchaser.
      HE IS THE PURCHASER. On the second form, His uncle is the purchaser.

      Following this ridiculous logic, if you sell a can of spray paint to a minor that you bought from walmart, walmart is accountable for the graffiti the child did with it because they allowed you, the adult, to straw purchase the spray paint.

  50. I think this is typical of the “old school” law makers and the current admin. They seem to be slowly but surely taking our freedoms and making it harder on everyday people. We are treated like criminals. At some point we will become criminals they way things are going. What happened to this country….? It may get better but we have to get the “old school” way of thinking out and get some young un-influenced people in these decision making positions.

  51. this is a no-brainier. The guy lied on the form. But why the feds had to waste our tax money going after him is beyond me..go watch the border,,

  52. There is a hidden tyranny within our republic that directly threatens our constitutional rights and freedoms. This malevolent entity is called “the federal bureaucracy“. Our elected representatives seem not to have the time to formulate the details of legislation they offer and pass. They conveniently leave the implementation details to an army of unelected bureaucrats. They provide this authority many times within the legislation leaving us at the mercy of mini tyrants that many times twist the intent of legislation to meet their own agendas or provide complex and convoluted processes and rules that can in many cases circumvent the intent of the legislators. It should be clearly evident from recent federal government scandals that these bureaucrats are shielded behind union protections that make it virtually impossible to fire for cause short of defecating on the desk of a cabinet secretary or a president. They find themselves indemnified against punishment or dismissal for intentional or incompetent actions.
    The “Straw Man Purchase” provision as implemented by the ATF, an agency infamous for creating law from “whole cloth” through its rulemaking and implementation, is a perfect example of mutation of legislative intent.
    It is our unfortunate circumstance that most of the liberal members of the court seem intent on reinterpreting the “living constitution” and using personal bias instead of legislative intent when reconciling issues and offering decisions. They are often joined by one of the “moderate” justices in prevailing decisions. This explains the erosion of our constitutionally protected rights over the years. I would also note that the “Heller” decision, which defined the right to keep arms as an individual right was itself a 5-4 judgment. The bearing of arms is still somewhat in question at the federal level. So the generalization that 5-4 decisions are often wrong is a subjective analysis at best.

  53. The right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed , I will tell you a secret it will continue to be infringed until we remember the begining of this amendment !!!!

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a( free State)

    FORGET THE MILITIA FORGET A FREE STATE PURE AND SIMPLE

    if you don’t like current ones make your own its our only hope God willing…

  54. Wow! As a gun collector who one day will like to leave my guns to my children this is a mighty blow. I guess now I will have to invest in a trust.

  55. As I understand the law about ‘straw’ purchases is: to intentionally buy a firearm to be given or sold to another who, on their own merit, cannot legally purchase a firearm. I have never seen the law so am not sure of the exact wording. This case is a legal purchase of a firearm that will be sold to another who can legally own a firearm. As I see it, the Supreme Court just wrote a law, at the very least changed the law to suit their beliefs by not enforcing the letter of the law. Their ‘job’ is to apply the letter of the law, not change the wording. The next law we should look into changing is the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices. Who judges the judges? Congress? When the SCj begin rewriting the law is when they should be removed.

  56. This disgusts me; The Obama administration says they don’t have time to prosecute criminals being lawfully denied of guns, but they have time to prosecute the law abiding? Just goes to show Obama will do anything that goes against the second amendment. I hope Obama gets impeached.

  57. I started having this conversation at work last week. Please note I am a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

    He introduced the situation to me and asked my opinion. My opinion is it was correct to charge him as outlined by the law. While the original intent of the law was probably to prevent buying for and transferring to criminals and otherwise unlawful persons, he did; in fact, answer the question wrong.

    Now, the FFL should have been more informed when he asked if it would be okay. ATF Form 4473 (Revised in Aprinl of 2012) also comes with instructions. The instructions for Question 11a are pretty clear when it comes to ending the debate on lawfulness:

    “For purposes of this form, you are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (for example, redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment). You are also the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party. ACTUAL 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 buyer of the firearm and must answer “no “ to question 12a. 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 buyer of the firearm and should answer “yes” to question 12a.”

    While the original idea of the law was to prevent acquiring a firearm for someone that couldn’t own one, The instructions are very clear on how to answer the form. The FFL should have known this and informed the buyer at that time. The buyer, a LEO (current or former), should likewise be aware of the laws regarding firearms purchase, sell, and transfer if he is going to take part in it.

    My biggest grudge in regards to this entire situation is the fact that the uncle wrote “Glock 19” on the check. When you are tip-toeing the line of legality, it’s best to either leave no trail of anything, or to ensure your compliance with the law. This situation had a huge and easy trail to follow and they were outside the law.

    While I personally don’t like that these more-or-less legal guys are being turned into criminals for TRYING to follow the law, they did in fact break the law as it is written.

    With our anti-firearms Supreme Court justices we should be prepared for more of these laws and their original intentions to be adjusted and misinterpreted in the foreseeable future. Our 2A rights are definitely at risk.

  58. Being a legal responsible gun owner requires following the law, the same law that offers the constitutional right that applies to the right to maintain a firearm as much as the requirement placed on the paperwork to purchase such. Abramski violated that law when he falsified the application.

    Yes, there is an anti-gun agenda and legal, law abiding members need too be diligent to preserve that right but breaking the law that allows the legal possession of a firearm is not the way to preserve such rights.

    When we, the majority break the minor laws then we are no better than those who illegally obtains a firearm, no different than those who have no respect of the laws that pertain to legitimate gun ownership.

    Just as I do for my children as a parent, I raise them by setting a good example, this same applies to those who try to take my rights away as I will strive to set the example by my action which I know without doubt is morally correct. Yes there may come a time when the majority may need to reaffirm our rights given to us in the Constitution but falsifying paperwork is not the time, place or the correct thing to do.

    This man made a false statement in the legal application to purchase a firearm, yes perhaps in the spirit of the law nothing was wrong however when dealing with the left, such does not apply and this is when we need to careful even with the smallest detail.

    1. Wes Myers suggests that responsible gun owners should actually follow the laws of the land and the best retort is “Due you must be a liberal??”

    1. Now there will be an underground for buying guns and Rifles.How stupid is the Supreme Court anyway.

  59. @ Beau,

    You do a lot of talking but you fall way short in the listening department, is it intentional? If you made any kind of sense, it would be easier to reply to your arguments but your ignorant ramblings make that impossible. By the way, please sort this out for the rest of us. We are really having trouble solving this problem without your help.

  60. this has broad implications… at what point in time does the re-sale or other transfer of a firearm become exempt from the “straw-purchase” label?
    If I buy a gun and decide to sell it 5, 10, 15 years later, is “THAT” a straw purchase?

  61. I do not recall saying anything at all about “throwing our hands up and forgetting about it”. I am simply stating a fact. You can ban gun sales and close gun stores and stop gun shows and perform background checks until the cows come home but wicked and demented people are still going to hurt the innocent. Quibbling over whether a law abiding citizen should be able to purchase a gun for a relative seems ridiculous in light of the real problem. Making it more difficult to purchase firearms isn’t even going to slow down violence committed with guns by criminals or the insane. Even if you did put a stop to gun sales via straw purchases and such, there are so many guns in this country right now, you will never be able to stem the tide of gun violence. Take away all the guns, they’ll use knives. Take all the knives and criminals will find other means. The point I am making is that the problem begins with people, not guns. Gun owners should be held responsible for crimes committed with guns that they own, period! The question I think is; how many of our freedoms should everyone be willing to give up to make a feeble and ineffective attempt at stopping gun violence?

    1. You’re correct, William. People just don’t get it yet. I waste a lot of time trying ‘explain’ it so they understand the reality of what the government is doing below radar here. And until it comes up and bites their own balls, they’ll continue to be willfully stupid.

      Just like the stupidity of the ‘straw purchase’ problem, which never ever was really a ‘problem’ if you knew the truth.

      Wait until this unfortunate agenda based SCOTUS rules on the part c and d of the 3373 form after the EVA BRAUN Twins get their “Pause for Freedom” bill through!! The LOL moment of irony will then be to see people like beau even defecate himself.

      The whole purpose of background checks for gun stores in the first place was to do the first ‘shove’ down the slippery slope of agenda based gun confiscation. At first it was a clever and skillfully presented illusion. To many it sounded like a ‘reasonable’ way to ‘help’ public safety.

      But it was one of the top 10 greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the Free American citizens ever perpetrated.

      You don’t do a background check when you purchase a car from a dealer? Or even a really dangerous ‘high capacity’ semi-truck capable of carrying tons of gasoline that can literally turn into weapon of mass destruction, AND which have already been proven to cause more deaths and injuries across the nation than all the gun injuries and deaths!
      YOU CAN BUY A JETLINER LIKE THE ONES THEY USED IN 911 FOR CHRIST’S SAKE WITHOUT A ‘BACKGROUND CHECK’!!
      The back-ground checks are the precursor for Search and Seizure, because they are an effective form of REGISTRATION!!!!

      WHAT PART OF THAT DOESN’T ANY BODY GET YET?!

      So then what did you think was going to happen next? Why does this SCOTUS decision even surprise anybody. Do you think they ever will STOP just with that?

      Doesn’t anybody get the ultimate below radar implication here yet?

      Everybody who doesn’t still have the same gun they purchased from the store can now get investigated and have a potential seizure under this ‘straw purchases’ ruling extension.

      Next will be Mental illness verification ‘cards’, and then infringing upon the gunshow private purchase right.

      What really aggravates me is that my tax dollars pay for their insidious Fascist think tanks to come up with this devious methodology. They beat the “No Registry’ law with background checks. And now stupid imbecile gun owners want to help them by making them concessionary pleadings with ‘stricter checks’ and more!

      Next will be the ‘closing’ of your rights to private commerce transactions.

      Then, in natural succession, the right to dangers ‘against the public’ safety with other ‘private’ purchases. Especially under Obama care. High Capacity sugar and alcohol and cigarettes will be following soon.

      The Beau troll will be ‘right again’!!!

      I’m spending all my spare change to try to help those critical Senate Races in the next few months as we count down to the tipping point of the death, or salvation, of ‘liberty and justice for all’

      If we make it this November, Then we should all support an effort to change the laws back to benefit the peoples’ freedoms. Not the politicians and agenda based socialist engineers.

      Restoring the constitution and banning all government intrusion should be seriously undertaken right after we legislate strict term limitations.

      Which by the way should be Two terms only. One office…and one in jail if they don’t do what they were hired to do.

      Then, the coup de gras on all us ‘pacifist compliant’ oriented weaklings, will

    2. What a load of crap. Your argument is that since there will always be a crazy nut somewhere, that prevents the rest of us from doing anything at all, ever. So because we can’t stop EVERY drunk driver, it’s useless to try and prevent drunk driving.

      Your feeble position is not just stupid, it’s FELONY STUPID. Are you folks getting enough oxygen?

      You run along and be a quitter. The rest of us will sort this out. Grab yer gun and enjoy your fear and wacked out conspiracy theories while you dream of a firefight with the feds that you will not survive. Idiots.

  62. Agreed.

    As to the issue being discussed, If the gentleman wanted to purchase a bottle of whiskey for a family member, or an automobile, who would think a thing of it. If more nut jobs went around committing murders with automobiles or while intoxicated, I suppose we would be discussing the legalities of transferring those items. We can either accept the fact that in a free society there is going to be a certain level of undesirable behavior by undesirable or unstable people and do our best to curtail such behavior or we can let big brother take our freedoms away and accept the undesirable behavior that they will most certainly impose upon us as a result.

    1. So we just throw our hands up and forget about it because you equated guns with whiskey and cars? That’s no answer.

      But you’re right in a way.
      IF (thats IF) more ‘nutjobs’ killed more people then possibly we could make a slight equation, but that hasn’t happened nearly as much as illegal and criminal gun violence, so we cannot make that equation.

    2. Beau, you win. You are the ultimate troll. And, you have managed to get some to respond to you. But, I don’t care to read one more word from you. If you or any other troll continue to attempt to disrupt the conversation, I’m out of here. Go to a public meeting to spout off and see how long you last. At least I have the guts to use my real name.

    3. If we ever require an intelligence test for gun ownership, you will end up with a slingshot permit. Fool. I don’t need to use my full name here to prove my manhood to you or anyone else.

      When you have the kills I have from war, you’d understand. Until then shutup or borrow some brains. Your macho shit is not impressive. Now, go back to your x-box war.

  63. My understanding is that I may give a gun as a gift to my son and that I can make a private person to person purchase of a gun without FFL interference.

  64. I think it’s clear that the language of the law needs to be changed at the congressional level to clarify that purchases with intent to transfer to a family member (who is not known to be legally ineligible to own a firearm) are exempted. This exemption should specify children and parents.

    I think the particulars of this case as cited do constitute an illegal purchase, but we are now just one split hair from losing a right we should never lose. We cannot trust an executive branch agency (ATF) to protect our rights – we need congress to set it in stone.

  65. Any way you slice it they were knowingly and intentionally committing a crime. Even if you accept the premise that they did not believe the straw purchase issue applied no one seems to care that the only reason they did this was so he could fraudulently use his discount to purchase the firearm. This is a non issue, legal purchasers can simply buy their weapons as we always have, don’t lie and buy one for someone else. Is everyone ethically challenged? If you do not lie you do not have a problem.

    1. Why is your logic so one sided, Steve?

      The government lies to their bosses, us, and gets people killed all the time lately.

      How come ‘THEY’ don’t have any problems?

      Is there a double standard i don’t know about?

      I guess it’s because ‘lies’ are not illegal unless they make their own agenda based laws to make them criminal. Like they just did here.

      Do you have every firearm you ever purchased through a dealer still in your possession, Steve?

      You just don’t get it, my friend.

    2. Based on your comment I’m going to assume you don’t work in law enforcement. However, I quite often use my law enforcement discount when purchasing firearms and gear. These discounts are offered in many different ways, but primarily they are either an overall LEA discount offered by the gun shop or a dealer direct LEA discount authorized by (most commonly) Glock and Smith & Wesson.

      To qualify for the discount we either show our LEA credentials at the point of purchase, or if it is an Internet purchase that will be shipped to an FFL, we are allowed to fax or email a scanned copy of our official LEA I.D./Badge and a copy of our driver license into the Internet dealer. Manny online outlets keep a copy on file so we don’t have to keep sending it in with each purchase.

      Now to address your comments… once the purchase is made, there is nothing legally, ethically, or fraudulently wrong with gifting the purchase to another person. The gun dealer could care less, likewise Glock and Smith & Wesson could care less. There is no contingent stipulating the weapons must be used for official duty only.

      The bottom line is these are private companies offering a discount to make a sale and to ensure their brand remains associated in good standing with law enforcement. There were never any strings attached.

  66. Well Beau, I owned you and you don’t even realize it. Since you’ve obviously no clue how to reply in the proper thread I’ll just post here and be done with you.

    First you’d have to know a little something about how to do some authentic research… and what you did is far from anything resembling a valid examination of the facts. In truth, what you did was so utterly ridiculous that I will stop right here and leave you to waller in your own stupidity. Wow, what an incredible embarrassment you’ve made of yourself. I don’t even want my presence to be seen on the same page with you anymore. We are truly done now. You don’t know it yet, but you’ll write another meaningless comeback thinking you’ve won a prize or something and I’ll just… be gone.

    1. In other words, G-man, you lost in the discussion and ran away and hid. Not particularly admirable…

  67. Sounds like somebody’s irritated due to facts they don’t like.

    No one here’s handed me anything. If you’ve run out of intellect or thoughtful dialog, and you have to run along, we’ll miss you.

  68. Informative article and definitely worth the read. Your editor though, must surely be taking a nap.

  69. Criminals don’t leave any paper trail. They buy guns with cash, drugs, stolen merchandise, or simply steal them. All the “straw purchaces” are about common citizens, sucoming to rediculous laws to try to excersize their rights, and while we argue the point, criminals armed with guns we know nothing about are having their way.

    1. Again, not true. A flat-out LIE. Most of the mass shootings we see today are with guns purchased from local gun shops.

      Are you folks trying to sound ignorant? Splattering lies on the Internet must be a new trend here. You know we can fact check your BS in 5-10 seconds’ right?

      Get educated and step your game up.

    2. @Beau. Too bad you have reading comprehension problems; you might be a little less annoying if you could follow the dialogue. Bill never said a word about mass shootings… you did. He was speaking crime in general. Come on… focus… stay with us man.

    3. Oh crap! I completely forgot for a second there. You folks don’t consider ‘mass shootings’ a crime! Billy Boomhower says (what follows is a direct quote): “Criminals don’t leave any paper trail. ” and so now these two deranged teabaggers who cold-bloodedly shot two cops in the head in a Las Vegas restaurant are somehow not criminals? Huh? Really? The PAPER gun receipts have already been found. You got some ‘esplainin’ to do. And no BS please about how there is ‘general crime’ VS mass shootings, and how somehow the two are different.

      I’ll pull up a chair, clean my Bushmaster AR-15 for the first time ever, and wait to be enlightened by your thoughtful response. Besides, if I wasn’t here to antagonize you with facts, what else would you do? Almost everyone else here agrees with you, not me. That would get boring quickly.

    4. @Beau. Dude you just got rooted and you know it. You’re just not man enough to admit when you’ve had your @$$ handed to you.

      There’s really nothing to respond to now that we’ve seen your random childish ramblings that make no sense at all, in a forced effort to try and save face. If only you knew what a fool you’ve made of yourself, you’d be embarrassed enough to stop. Err, probably not.

    5. Purchased legally? You’re trying to find a needle in a haystack. Millions of people purchase legal guns and don’t go nuts like that. You seem as if you have an answer to the problem. You don’t; neither does this so called president. You can’t prevent mass shootings, it’s a hard pill to swallow, but it’s the truth. The governement arm people because they know using guns as a defense is a good idea. And please, before you spew out stupid crap about cops training, let me save you the hassale. Cops only train with their guns twice a year…..did you get that? I train more than that. Cops don’t use their guns every second because that’s not their job; they have other things to do. I train once a week….did you get that?? Let me say it again: Law abiding citizens train more than cops. Again, another hard pill to swallow. If you out right ban guns, you’ll have a more violent and crime populated area. England should be the perfect example of that. The Obama administration is just anti gun beyond belief. The fact they only prosecuted 13 out of 77,000 people and call for stricter background checks, when they’re not enforcing the ones we have now, and suddenly attack a legal transfer of a gun and say that they’re accomplishing something, is idiotic. I don’t know what to even say to you, you won’t get it. In your head guns are bad, so think what you will.

  70. I can see the court’s decision “in the spirit” that there was no intention of giving it as a gift, or to buy it for the purposes of a raffle. He was paid in advance by a 3rd party. What I found surprising is that it was noted in the memo section of the check what [specifically] the intent/purpose of payment by the uncle in PA.

    As far as targeting social media groups for subject matter considered inappropriate, we all have that option as well. As they say, “what is good for the goose…”

    1. It was noted in the check’s memo because these subjects did not believe this transaction was breaking any laws. The intent of the law is meant to dissuade a lawfully eligible purchaser from buying a gun for a prohibited possessor. It was never intended as a system of records for tracing gun ownership.

      Unfortunately the liberal leaning Justices currently hold the majority. As expected, they ruled out of bounds and beyond the scope of the Constitution. However, a legislative correction is necessary and should be forthcoming after this November.

    2. Sorry to disappoint you, but I can tell you with some certainty that most Democrats, liberals, progressives and independent journalists feel our current supreme court is NOT left leaning, but right leaning.

      Again, I gotta question where you get your news. You’re way off.
      I suspect it’s FAUX News.

    3. @ Beau. You can claim people feel any way you like. I’m sure you feel witty, intelligent, and correct all the time, but that doesn’t make it so. The facts to this matter are simple and go well beyond mere feelings.

      The reality is these named Justices through their own professed political affiliations, administrative selections, and documented concurring or dissenting opinions makes very clear their leanings to the Left. A simple Google search would overwhelmingly bear this out for you and spare you any continued embarrassment.

    4. Jesus Christ, this is gettin stupid easy to refute you people, it’s stunning that you invite me to do it. Not stunning if you are a viewer of FOX Newz tho.

      Here’s how I DEBUNKED your contention about the supreme court. I went to Google and entered the following: supreme court leaning left or right

      Then, to make sure I didn’t screw-up my results with the order of words, I entered: supreme court leaning right or left (basically switched left and right) Then I tallied the top 200 pages from each result and basically you’re wrong. Way wrong. By an order of 158 points, and 142 points respectively. So. . .

      We have a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court. That’s why it called the Roberts court. Roberts is conservative and the balance leans conservative, by your own request.

      Got anything else for us to debunk?

    5. Plain facts..He lied on the form period and secondly he was stupid enough to talk to law enforcement. “The fish wouldn’t hang on the wall if it didn’t open its mouth.” Lets lok at this from the other side.. intention aside. The form is pretty clear. who should we allow to lie on it?? Just LEO?? Or how about a Felon that lost his job and couldn’t make his child support payments, a felony in Michigan and I would guess some other states. I was under the impression that the 2nd ” shall not be infringed”. well just a little.

    6. @ Joe liberal: You lost me at the part where you start talking about a Felon that lost his job and couldn’t make his child support payments. Who are you talking about and how does that have anything to do with this Supreme Court case or the flow of this forum topic?

  71. I do not understand why the people in this country keep putting up with this BS. We voted these idiots in so why don’t we vote ALL of them out.
    There are far more people in this country than there are politicians, so why do we keep allowing them to do this ?

    1. So you don’t understand why the people in this country keep putting up with this BS?

      Let me simplify it for you. Turn off FOX Newz. Here it comes – get ready. . . .

      YOU ARE A MINORITY.
      YOU ARE A FRINGER (on the fringe).
      YOU DON’T HAVE THE VOTES.
      and
      THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH YOU.
      See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

    2. One poll… you call 911 and I will keep my responsibility for my own personal protection. You are a mere sheep.

  72. Anytime we get a 5-4 decision from the high court, you can pretty much count on it being “bad” law. This Court has handed down some poorly thought out decisions, and this case is just another example. The issue is not settled — it will be revisited. We can only hope that there will be no more appointments by the current administration.

  73. A couple of months ago I started urging others to join as many gun related Facebook groups and websites as possible. Why? Because the gun-control nut-jobs have begun to search the web and social sites to attempt to get videos and other postings removed through false claims about the content that they believe is inappropriate. This confirms that premise in my mind. Now the law will do the same, looking for victims to prey on all across the web and other media . Many Facebook groups have changed their status to Secret as a deterrent to trolls and have gotten much more careful about who they let in, I say again: “Set up accounts with more retailers, buy something to support them , and join as many social sites as possible.” Be careful where you try to sell something, like newspapers, Craigslist, or billboards.

  74. Wrong premise Dave. Just wrong. It’s not about takink guns away from you and I. Its ABOUT making America safer for our selves and our kids. Its about keeping guns outta the hands of the criminally insane and the truly deranged.

    I know it is a fine line, but SURELY if we can land on the moon, cure polio, and build the modern Internet, we can do just a little bit better than doing NOTHING.

    Are we incapable of the greatness we proclaim to have inherently as Americans. No. We are still able to progress. Some of us have hit their limit of greatness. Others, like me, have not. We can do better and leave a better World behind for our kids.

    It’s 2014 for cryin out loud.

    1. Right, it’s about making America safer. That’s why Obama has said that he only prosecuted 13 out of 77,300 people who failed a background check. Either you’re down right retarded or you don’t know half of what you’re talking about. Want to know a deadly combination? Mix bleach and ammonia together, then release those deadly fumes. But wait, guns are the only thing that make a society dangerous, right? You seem to be the expert, please embrace me in your half Intellect. You seem like the kind of person that separates violence from gun violence, as if to say gun violence is somehow so much worse. And criminals don’t leave a paper trail, go to Austria, you can get a illegal gun for 50 dollars in less than 5 minutes; don’t believe me? They made a documentary about it. Guns being regulated doesn’t affect the criminals, only the law abiding. I’m glad you don’t own guns, because you seem too ignorant and irresponsible to own one. Plus, you probably voted for Obama care because you believed his lies. You’re an idiot; sorry for the truth.

  75. It should be obvious when the Court is split this close that something is amiss. Two Obama appointees stand out right off the cuff: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Both of whom were installed by Obama to replace much more conservative judges. I’ve read several of their opinions and dissents since taking office and they all defy common sense logic with a tendency for leaning towards anti-gun rhetoric and over empowering minorities and gay rights as if on some crusade rather than fairness and justice for all. Their bias is so obvious it is almost disgusting.

    1. Hold up here g-man. Two justices do not make a ruling. Obviously there were ‘conservative’ justices who agreed, or this would not have been the ruling. How do you explain that without continuously blaming Obama? This court is decidedly ‘conservative’ despite Sotomayor and Kagan. Everyone, everywhere, knows this but you and a few misguided souls posting here apparently.

      You’re not entitled to your own facts.

    2. Not that you had any credibility to begin with, but any shred you may have had left just puffed away with that last brain fart.

      They are all liberal leaning. Aside from Kagan and Sotomayor as previously noted, what we have left are:

      Kennedy, though appointed by Reagan, has always been known as a moderate liberal who generally sides with the other liberal Justices. Ginsburg, appointed by Clinton – the first black president, is also known for her tilt towards the liberal side of the spectrum. And then you have Breyer who was also appointed by Clinton and who is most definitely associated with more liberal decisions.

      I am seriously beginning to question whether you even live in this country. You’re definitely not qualified to speak on these matters. Please, for you own sake stop making such a fool of yourself.

    3. I call bullshit on the Kennedy-moderate-liberal designation…review recent SC decisions and you will see Kennedy siding with the Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas cabal far more often than with the Liberals…get your facts straight.

    4. Beau, a perspective for you to consider–your tone and argumentative strategies are exactly like those you disparage. Hence, you become your own worst enemy in these dialogues. I had hoped you had something to help me see both sides of the issue, but I am put off by your style and your reasoning.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.