TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Is signing a form that claims it's signing under penalty of purgery, the same as signing "under oath"? Who swore him in?

Serious question, not trolling.

If you are referring to Mike B's question above, let me rephrase it a bit.

"Are some of you really supporting a police officer who lied under penalty of perjury?"

Surely you do not hold a public official to a higher standard of truth when he signs under oath than when he signs under penalty of perjury?

Jim

sjfcontrol wrote:Is signing a form that claims it's signing under penalty of purgery, the same as signing "under oath"? Who swore him in?

Serious question, not trolling.

AndyC wrote:Yeah, that's how I see it, too.

Although I agree that he lied on the form - and he's going to bear the consequences - I'm finding it hard to see any concrete crime in this.

There was no intent to evade the background check itself that I can see (obviously, as both parties went through their respective background checks and passed) - which is the whole point of those instructions, I presume. I'm calling this "scope creep".

C-dub wrote: I thought the legal definition of a straw purchase was if one was making the purchase for another that would not pass the background check or who was not legally able to possess a firearm. Is that not correct? I guess it doesn't make a difference in this case, though, does it?

VMI77 wrote:

OldCannon wrote:This is a non-issue, from my perspective. A gift is "A transfer of property with nothing given in return." This case did not involve actual gift-giving, but a quid-pro-quo, which is definitely a no-no for 4473 transfers.

I know folks will discuss the finer points until the cows come home, but as an FFL, this changes nothing from my perspective. Frankly, I see no reason why this rose to the level of a Supreme Court decision.

As I understand it, this decision has much broader implications than it seems. I've read that there is no law prohibiting straw purchases, it's just a policy interpretation by the ATF. IOW, Congress did not pass a law making straw purchases illegal, the ATF just unilaterally decided they are. If this is true, the SC just made violating a policy of a government agency a crime. Or if you take the "lying" view, they made it illegal to lie about something that isn't illegal. In the case of those like Martha Stewart the claim was they lied about something that was illegal.

Jumping Frog wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:
The thing of it is that it wasn't really law, it was a policy the BATFE adopted.

Now it is. Correct?

It depends on how one uses language. Basically the law says that they are allowed to make regulations about certain things and that if you lie you can go to jail. So are you breaking the law or the regulation?

It has little to do with the actual gun law. He was convicted of making a false statement to the United States.

This is the same way that both Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart were convicted and went to jail. It had nothing to do with any underlying crime, their conviction was for lying to the government. Martha Stewart was never convicted of insider trading, she was convicted for making false statements.

Lesson here is if the government ever asks questions, never lie. Refuse to answer if you want, but do not open your mouth on anything can be be construed as false.

mojo84 wrote:But note that scotus has ruled is it still just a batfe regulation?

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.

The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.

Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.

I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.

The thing of it is that it wasn't really law, it was a policy the BATFE adopted.

Now it is. Correct?

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.

The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.

Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.

I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.

goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.

Jumping Frog wrote:

C-dub wrote: It's also slightly amazing that anyone would even bother taking this case to court when they don't bother with the thousands of others, including felons, that try to purchase firearms from stores ...

This may be a good moment to pause and reflect on the truth of the saying "elections have consequences".

All the righteous people who valiantly refused to vote for the imperfect (R) alternative because he failed to be conservative enough can look in the mirror when contemplating the names "Sotomayor" and "Kagan". Wouldn't it have been nice to have nominees who would have joined an opinion with Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito?

There is a lesson here for grown-ups willing to listen when 2016 rolls around.

Jumping Frog wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:The uncle was paying for the handgun, and the nephew was buying it. Had the nephew bought the gun and gave it as a gift, there would have been no problem.

Can you make this more clear, legally speaking... I dug and dug and couldn't find a way that you could legally buy a gun for someone else. You've got to essentially break the law by indicating that you're not buying the firearm for someone else.. Is there a "gift" box that I don't know about? (ATF Form 4473)

I know that a gift is not a straw purchase, as there is no money involved.

It appears that the only way to do it is to purchase it for yourself and transfer it through an FFL...

Someone correct me..

Well, I see you've already noticed the gift instructions posted above for question 11a of the Form 4473.

Let me expand on my original comment, "follow the money".

In this case, the uncle wrote a check to the nephew dated prior to the nephew purchasing the firearm. Pretty easy to follow the money in this case. There is no arguing that the nephew bought the gun, decided he didn't like it, and later sold it in a private sale, as the funds preceded the purchase.

For a gift, there should be no quid-pro-quo movement of money from the gift receiver to the gift giver.

As far as your comment, "purchase it for yourself and transfer it through an FFL" that misses the point. Even if the nephew had given the gun to his uncle by transferring it through an FFL, his original charge was making a false statement on the Form 4473 for the original purchase. A later transfer via FFL still does not negate the earlier false statement.

Of course, if you are gifting or selling a handgun or long gun (any firearm) to an ordinary non-FFL person who resides in a different state, that must always go through an FFL because interstate transfers must always pass through an FFL. The only (rare) exceptions are firearms bequeathed after death.