TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez

MeMelYup wrote: The brief states: "Here, Abramski clearly purchased the firearm with his own money, since he was reimbursed three days after he purchased the gun. The instructions make it appear that this distinction might matter."

Well yes, if you read the defendants side, his lawyer spins it as innocent and supporting of his case.
If you read the government's side ...

On November 15, 2009, Alvarez sent
petitioner a check for $400 with “Glock 19 handgun”
written in the memo line

On November 17, 2009, petitioner purchased a Glock
19 handgun

BTW, I trust neither side to be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.. They each will say what they need to to achieve the outcome desired. I'll assume for this conversation doing so legally and not lying.. but the same truth can be spun in many ways, facts are very useful in getting people to believe anything you want them to.. it's all in how, when or if you tell them.
15th being before the 17th, indicates to me, Mr Abramski was paid for a gun he had not yet purchased, and that the purchase was clearly intended to be for Mr Alvarez .

Again, what do I know...Im just calling it like I see it... as do others here... there are no wrongs, just opinions.

Intent of the law as set forth by those empowered to create law.. was NOT violated in my belief.
The Government disagrees,,,

now SCOTUS gets to decide

E.Marquez

MeMelYup wrote: I have not read anything where he was asked by his relative to purchase the gun for that relative. There has been nothing indicating that the relative gave him money to purchase the item prior to the purchase. The relative was legally able to purchase a gun because it was transferred to the relative through a FFL. Where is the crime as far as the ATF is concerned?

Might check again...

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ed-states/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the links provided in this thread it was stated ..
Allegedly the uncle and Mr Abramski discussed the purchase and transfer before the purchase took place.
Allegedly His uncle wrote him a check before the purchase, and indicated on the check it was for the Glock 19 purchased later.
Both the Uncle and Mr Abramski admitted the weapon was purchased for the uncle.

All that aside, from what i have read.. I believe the intent of the law was not violated, and I believe both the Uncle and Mr Abramski believed what they were doing was legal and I believe they were advised at the point of purchase that the deal was legal (ethics of the choice to buy a discounted firearm and reselling to another aside, as its not germane to the event or issue at hand)

E.Marquez

MeMelYup wrote:Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/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 TRANS- FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. 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 transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

According to this statement on the back of the 4473, even if he purchased the item for resale and checked yes, he has not lied.

Is that how you read it

I'm seeing this
"ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith (uncle) asks Mr. Jones (Abramski) to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith(uncle) . Mr. Smith (uncle) gives Mr. Jones(Abramski) the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones (Abramski) is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS- FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones.(Abramski) "

Which seem to exactly describe the event in question and clearly states the guy with cash in hand MUST CHECK NO, and further that the licensee may not transfer the weapon.

E.Marquez

jimlongley wrote:(say, if he bought the gun and then a suitable time later sold it to his relative.)

As soon as you add a variable that can be loosely interpreted by what ever arm of the law you have the attention of.. problems will arise.
Who decides "suitable time later" ? Obviously it wont be the one charged.. so the officer? Patrol Sergeant? DA? BATF agent? Judge?

Many a person has bought a gun with the intent of keeping it, then resold it hours, days later. Need of cash,,, wife got mad, shot once and does not feel right, bout a left handed bolt rifle on clearance,, and did not noting it was for a lefty.. what ever the reason....

"They" enacted waiting periods to purchase a gun.. Now we need waiting periods to sell a gun????

Clearly the law was not enacted to prevent Mr x from buying a gun at a good price and selling that gun to someone else who is legally allowed to own it as the original purchaser.

Once again, making criminals of otherwise honest citizens.

This case will be interesting to follow.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 4 matches

Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case

Re: SCOTUS to Hear Straw Purchase Case