Jump to content

Supreme Court Decision Yesterday!


Recommended Posts

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday, to no longer allow guns to be gifted from one individual to another! Dad can't buy Johnny that first .22 for Christmas! Also, they said one person cannot sell a gun to another person. Buy a gun and decide after shooting it that you don't like it, they say you cannot sell it to another person. Sorry, I do not know who the majority vote was...Roberts? Check it out. I'm trying to figure out how to hot-link the article. It was posted on "Daily Sanity".

Link to comment

Not exactly. They upheld the current straw purchase law, but it is unclear the implications that the interpretation of that ruling holds. Either way it is confusing and going to be messy before it is said and done.

Link to comment

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday, to no longer allow guns to be gifted from one individual to another! Dad can't buy Johnny that first .22 for Christmas! Also, they said one person cannot sell a gun to another person. Buy a gun and decide after shooting it that you don't like it, they say you cannot sell it to another person.

 

They didn't say any of that at all.

  • Like 5
Link to comment

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday, to no longer allow guns to be gifted from one individual to another! Dad can't buy Johnny that first .22 for Christmas! Also, they said one person cannot sell a gun to another person. Buy a gun and decide after shooting it that you don't like it, they say you cannot sell it to another person. Sorry, I do not know who the majority vote was...Roberts? Check it out. I'm trying to figure out how to hot-link the article. It was posted on "Daily Sanity".

 

I'm afraid that none of your interpretation is correct. Federally, it is:

 

- still perfectly legal to buy a firearm as a gift for anyone not prohibited from ownership (is example on 4473 itself)

- still perfectly legal to sell to non-prohibited same state resident in private transaction

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
  • Like 2
Link to comment

This is what it was all about, crossing state lines is a big NO, NO.

I think it was also about buying a gun for another person when it isn't a genuine gift. Giving money to someone so they can go buy a gun for you isn't a gift, even if the person can legally own the gun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I think it was also about buying a gun for another person when it isn't a genuine gift. Giving money to someone so they can go buy a gun for you isn't a gift, even if the person can legally own the gun.

 

Yep, and again, that is the exact distinction made in directions on the 4473, the simple difference that separates gift from straw purchase.

 

But of course, privately selling or even giving a firearm to a resident of a different state is illegal period.

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
Link to comment

This is just my opinion...

 

I think the straw purchase law should be rewritten to state specifically that a straw purchase is only buying a gun for a prohibited person ,or buying with intent to resale a gun to a prohibited person.

Because if the person was prohibited from buying guns, then I could see it as a straw purchase.

 

But if both parties are legal to purchase and own a firearm, it shouldn't matter at all if one buys it for the other.

 

Again, this is just my opinion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment

They didn't say any of that at all.

Here's what the article I read said:

The Second Amendment is as American as apple pie. Throughout our history, the gun has been essential in making America what it is today. From winning our independence to winning the West, from providing food for the family to providing personal protection in a dangerous world... Guns are part of the fabric of this country.
Another American staple is the gifting of firearms. Every year, family members purchase firearms for their relatives. Friends give guns to one another. Hell, even U.S. Presidents have received guns as gifts from foreign dignitaries. Whether it is a father giving a child their first gun or the other way around, this happens almost every day.
Well, now the Supreme Court has made every single one of these gift-givers instant felons! A divided Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that it is illegal for an individual to buy a gun with the express purpose of giving or selling it to someone else, even if both people are allowed to own guns!
In the case, Abramski v. United States, petitioner Bruce Abramski was charged after buying a gun and then selling it to a family member. Since Abramski was law enforcement, he received a discount on purchasing any Glock handgun. He bought the gun so his uncle wouldn't have to pay full price. Dishonest, yes, but there shouldn't be anything illegal about that.
Normally, you have to have to be licensed to deal in firearms, but the law allows citizens to sell their personally owned guns every now and then. Abramski claims that he owned a pistol and then decided to sell it to his uncle.

Link to comment

I'm afraid that none of your interpretation is correct. Federally, it is:

 

- still perfectly legal to buy a firearm as a gift for anyone not prohibited from ownership (is example on 4473 itself)

- still perfectly legal to sell to non-prohibited same state resident in private transaction

 

- OS

Here's a copy and paste from the beginning of the article I read.

 

The result of this ruling is absolutely staggering. If fully enforced, parents may no longer be able to buy and gift firearms to their children. No more teaching children how to responsibly use firearms... No more giving grandpa a rifle in honor of his military service... The only way to get a gun in Obama's America is to buy it yourself and let the government keep a record of it!
This is why Obama reignited his push for universal background checks last week. When it is illegal to give guns as gifts to friends and neighbors, and every firearm transfer must have a background check performed, that gives the government the complete ability to track gun ownership!
A universal background check is nothing but a synonym for gun registration. The only way to ensure that a firearm transfer was done correctly, if Obama is able to change the laws how he wants, would be to maintain a registry of all gun purchases/sales. Otherwise, everyone could just claim that they performed a background check, even if they didn't. That is why gun owners are so staunchly against mandatory background checks, because they require a gun registry to be enforceable. The stupidity of this ruling means that if you buy a gun and figure out you don't like it after a day, you can sell it to friends or family members without a problem. But if you buy a gun just to give to your family/friends, then you're all of a sudden a felon.
Make no mistake... Monday's Supreme Court ruling is about more than just prohibiting the gifting of firearms. It eliminates one of the few ways for people to legally buy a gun without letting Uncle Sam know about it!
There are plenty of lawful reasons to buy a gun for someone else and it is NONE of the government's business when this lawful exchange happens! Yet, the Supreme Court's ruling in Abramski now eliminates the ability to legally buy a firearm for someone else!
This isn't about stopping crimes. This is about ensuring that the government can track everyone who purchases a firearm!
Congress must amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (deceptive name, huh?) to protect the rights of family members and friends to buy guns for one another. Unless we force Congress to act NOW, then this Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land!
We cannot allow the Liberal Supreme Court Justices to ban the gifting of firearms!

Link to comment
I think the opinion is fairly clear in stating that the "individual who sends a straw to the gun store to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer . . . And that distinguishes such a person from someone who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party." See Page 19.

So, at least as this decision is concerned, I highly doubt it has any effect on any purchase other than a situation where the person completing the 4473 was sent to complete the purchase for someone else.
  • Like 1
Link to comment

Here's what the article I read said:
The Second Amendment is as American as apple pie. Throughout our history, the gun has been essential in making America what it is today. From winning our independence to winning the West, from providing food for the family to providing personal protection in a dangerous world... Guns are part of the fabric of this country.
Another American staple is the gifting of firearms. Every year, family members purchase firearms for their relatives. Friends give guns to one another. Hell, even U.S. Presidents have received guns as gifts from foreign dignitaries. Whether it is a father giving a child their first gun or the other way around, this happens almost every day.
Well, now the Supreme Court has made every single one of these gift-givers instant felons! A divided Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that it is illegal for an individual to buy a gun with the express purpose of giving or selling it to someone else, even if both people are allowed to own guns!
In the case, Abramski v. United States, petitioner Bruce Abramski was charged after buying a gun and then selling it to a family member. Since Abramski was law enforcement, he received a discount on purchasing any Glock handgun. He bought the gun so his uncle wouldn't have to pay full price. Dishonest, yes, but there shouldn't be anything illegal about that.
Normally, you have to have to be licensed to deal in firearms, but the law allows citizens to sell their personally owned guns every now and then. Abramski claims that he owned a pistol and then decided to sell it to his uncle.


That's why you need to read the opinion for yourself. That article is simply not accurate on either the arguments made by the defendant or the opinion of the court.
  • Like 4
Link to comment

Sidewinder, please post a link to what you read.

 

My understanding is Uncle wrote nephew a check with the notation "Glock 19 handgun" on it BEFORE nephew, who was not law enforcement BTW (his creds had already expired) yet was stil able to buy blue label, went and bought the firearm.

 

How is that not a straw purchase?

 

These two morons probably spent untold thousands of dollars to save a hundred bucks.

Edited by Garufa
  • Like 1
Link to comment

Here's what the article I read said:

...

 

That's why you need to read the opinion for yourself. That article is simply not accurate on either the arguments made by the defendant or the opinion of the court.

 

 

Yup, guy in article makes sweeping statements that simply aren't in the decision, which is quite a narrow one really.

 

- OS

  • Like 1
Link to comment

What do you mean I can't sell a pistol in another state? Not even to family?

 

Not just a pistol, and not just sell -- you can't even legally give any firearm to your son if he's a resident of a different state except via FFL transfer.

 

All interstate transfers must go through an FFL, and further, handguns may only be transferred in the state of the recipient.

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
Link to comment
Didn't know that, never did it before. Seems like an infringement though.

He live in one of those states that require an FFL anyway so were gonna go that route.
Thought you meant I couldn't sell it period.

Thanks for the clarification OS.
Link to comment

I searched and can't find it, but when was the straw purchase question added to the 4473 or gun purchase process?

 

What was the actual date and intended purpose?

 

Was it to prevent straw purchases of guns to give or sale to prohibited persons only, or was it to prevent all purchases of guns for anyone other than the person filling out the background (4473)?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.