TexasCHLforum.com

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.

On the majority’s view, if the bureaucrats responsible for creating Form 4473 decided to ask about the buyer’s favorite color, a false response would be a federal crime. That is not what the statute says. The statute punishes misstatements “with respect to information required to be kept, §924(a)(1)(A), not with respect to “information contained in forms required to be kept.” Because neither the Act nor any regulation requires a dealer to keep a record of whether a customer is purchasing a gun for himself or for an eligible third party, that question had no place on Form 4473. . . . Information regarding Abramski’s status as a “straw purchaser” was not “information required to be kept,” and that is an end of the matter.

He concludes:

The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it–especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accu

AndyC wrote:Heck, if everyone were convicted for lying we wouldn't have any politicians left.

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.