Abramski loses on a 5-4

Semantics but approached wrong way in my view. I bet if the Glcok was transferred as a gift and there was no money exchanged, there wouldn't have been an arrest/charge.

If you want someone else to buy you a gun from an FFL, just give them cash. After the initial sale. And don't lie when filling out the form.

My god even the dissent reads like Heller never was decided. Why are they talking about the rule of lenity when there is a constitutional right at issue? Certainly vague statutes have to be construed narrowly when they impinge on a constitutional right.

When pressed for the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, Madison was reticent because as he and others said, the addition was unnecessary since the federal government had no granted authority to legislate in the areas contemplated for inclusion in the Bill of rights and IF the rights were enumerated and added people would mistakenly believe that the federal government had the authority to legislate in the areas. And what do we see.

The federal government has no authority granted, and there are no implied authorities, to legislate in the areas covered by the Bill of Rights and the BoR grants NOTHING to the feds. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those we have selected to serve us continually either lie to steal power or are simply ignorant of the extremely limited power of the feds. The feds have no power to constitutionally control vehicles of transport so how did they get the power to control things in commerce. Why don't they have power of vessels of commerce? Because during the 1787 Convention, it was offered up to grant the power to regulate stages on the post roads and this power was withheld. The best reading anyone can do is Eliott's Debates. It covers truths like the conventioneers considering allowing the president the power to suspend laws temporarily BUT voted NOT to. Everything the 1787 Convention considered and threw out is proof of powers that the federal government does not constitutionally have.

The power to regulate commerce among the states involves only preventing states from interfering with the free flow of commerce, nothing more. Read the debates.

What I take from this is that you have to "own" the weapon before making the transfer to another person. If you immediately transfer to another then it would be a straw purchase, if you have that weapon in your possession for a month then you "owned" it. No straw purchase would then apply.

I do not agree with the decision but there are easy ways to make it work for you.

I attended the argument and thought the attorney totally screwed up. He argued against the straw purchase doctrine. Instead he should have argued that Abramski did everything right. He got a background check and his uncle got a background check when the gun was transferred to him. Taking on the straw purchase doctrine lost Kennedy in my view.

"the attorney totally screwed up"

Agreed.

Since Abramski bought the gun from an FFL in Virginia, and then transferred the gun to an FFL in Pennsylvania (as required by law), who then then transferred the gun to Abramski's uncle in Pennsylvania (as required by law), it is obvious to anyone - except lawyers and judges and the BATFE - there was no intent on Abramski's part to break any law.

I have no idea what (or if) Abramski's attorney was thinking.

As I understand it, a corporation is a person. And a corporation can take possession of a firearm if a flesh and blood representative carries out the transfer on its behalf. So in that case, one person can represent another in the transfer of a firearm.

But one flesh and blood person cannot represent another flesh and blood person under this ruling.

Does that seem illogical to anyone but me?

It's perfectly OK to buy a gun with the intent of making a gift of it. The 4473 instructions say that "You are also the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party," so you can check that box "yes." You, of course, are on the criminal hook if you give it to a person who's not allowed to receive it, but as far as YOUR acquisition-with-intent-to-transfer goes, the ATF is fine with it.

So what's with the knots in the shorts when there's an intent to transfer to a qualified third party other than by gift? Especially where, as here, the transfer went through another FFL/bakground check?

It reminds me of the attitude reportedly expressed by an Arizona cop a couple of years ago when the state was in the process of repealing its concealed carry permit requirement - "Now we won't have anything to arrest them for when they're not doing anything."

Kagan's opinion is pretty sloppy, and I think really flubs the rationale for why the lie on the form is even material.

I'm getting the impression that both Kagan and Sotomayor are producing low quality opinions.

I think that SCOTUS misread simple English on their way to an incorrect conclusion.

Of course, Scalia was exactly correct in concluding that BATFE had no legal basis for asking the question in the first place. But beyond that, Abramski did not lie. As quoted from the majority opinion, this is the language of Form 4473:

Quote:
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.

The error in reading is the meaning of the "/" punctuation.

The meaning of "/" is OR. It does not mean AND.

What the question says is, "Are you the actual transferee OR buyer of the firearm(s)... So if Abramski was EITHER the buyer or the transferee, he should have answered yes to the question, if, indeed, the question is permissible under the law.

Abramski was not the actual buyer under the majority ruling. But it is the function of an FFL to handle the background check and transfer of firearms. And the FFL transferred the firearm to Abramski. Title and possession are two different things.

I don't know where BATFE gets the idea that if you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm to you. I do not think that is supported anywhere in the applicable statutes.