TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

OldGrumpy wrote:

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".

The crime is he lied to the government on an official document. That is a felony. In my years of human resource management for a quasi-government agency I fired a number of people for lying on their application form. it was not relevant what the lie was about - all that mattered was they denied me the opportunity to make an honest decision because they lied.

Funny, how the people who wrote the Constitution didn't think lying to the government was a Federal Felony. Lie on a form, go to jail...if you're one of us peons that is. Lie under oath to Congress....no problem if you've been anointed into the ruling class. This country has been turned upside down and inside out.

Keith B wrote:In this case he one several things that hung him.

Abramski purchased the gun three days after his Uncle had written him a check for $400 with “Glock 19 handgun” written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered “yes” on a federal form asking “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 BATFE probably found out about the transfer except police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but during the investigation officials found out about the purchase and charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

By legal definition this IS a straw purchase per the way the 4473 is worded. The purchase was paid for ahead of time the by the person who was going to receive the firearm, and Abramski lied on the 4473 and said the gun was for him and that he was not acquiring it for another person.

Now, had he paid for the gun with his own money, then transferred it to his Uncle a few days later it would have very hard to prove premeditation on the transfer. They would have had to prove he didn't buy the gun for himself, have a case of buyers remorse, and since the store will not take them back, he offered to sell it to his Uncle who purchased it post buy.