TexasCHLforum.com

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

One can only hope and pray . . .

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.

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.

rotor wrote:The only thing that surprises me is that all 9 justices didn't agree that this was a straw purchase. How much clearer could the paperwork be that was signed and sworn to? I am not saying that I agree with the law, only that the purchaser lied when he signed his John Henry.

The question before the court was whether the false statement was material.

Here is the opinion: Abramski v. United States

Here is the opening paragraph:

[quote=""SCOTUS"]Petitioner Bruce Abramski offered to purchase a handgun for his uncle. The form that federal regulations required Abramski to fill out (Form4473) asked whether he was the “actual transferee/buyer” of the gun, and clearly warned that a straw purchaser (namely, someone buying a gun on behalf of another) was not the actual buyer. Abramski falsely answered that he was the actual buyer. Abramski was convicted for knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a gun, 18 U. S. C.§922(a)(6), and for making a false statement “with respect to the information required . . . to be kept” in the gun dealer’s records, §924(a)(1)(A). The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Held:
1. Abramski’s misrepresentation is material under §922(a)(6). Pp. 7–22.[/quote]
The really sobering portion of that decision is the court's finding of materiality in the false statement. This may give pause to folks who fib a little on Question 11(e).

11(e). Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

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.

A good example where elections have consequences. The liberal justices rammed it through.

In this particular case, the key issue to remember is "follow the money".

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.