buying guns for someone else

[EEllis]

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.

No it's more directly tied to guns than just lying to the Govt. It he had lied about something that wasn't a material fact then it wouldn't be a violation. BATFE can ask other questions and lying on them wouldn't be a violation. The case was about if that one question he lied on was material if the person he was buying for could legally buy the firearm.

[Keith B]

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.

[VMI77]

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.

[C-dub]

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.

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?

[Keith B]

Here's the deal; all they did was prove he lied on line 11(a) of the 4473

11 a. Are you the actual 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. (See Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)

On the form, it specifically states that falsifying the answer is a felony

I certify that the above answers are true and correct. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11a when I am not the actual buyer of the firearm is a crime punishable as a felony.

The ATF has a document that states a straw purchase is for someone cannot or WILL not buy a gun for themselves in one line, then in another line specifies the the penalty is for buying the gun for someone who is prohibited, so it is confusing at best on what a 'straw purchase' really is. https://www.atf.gov/publications/factsh ... paign.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2008-2009, the revamped campaign is being released in six cities. ATF and NSSF expanded the campaign to include alerting potential straw purchasers of the penalties of buying a gun for someone who cannot or will not buy one for themselves. This new consumer awareness program reinforces the message that buying a gun for someone who is prohibited is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. The revised campaign includes public service radio announcements, highway bill boards, and high-profile signage at transit bus stops and on the sides of buses.

No matter, they have him on falsifying the answer on 11a and that is what they will hang him on.

[EEllis]

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.

No

[EEllis]

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?

That is what the case was about, if it made a difference. He was charged with lying about information that is required for dealers to keep. That info happened to be about whether the purchase was a "straw purchase" but the crime was lying on the forms not the purchase. You can only be found guilty of a "straw purchase" if the other party cannot legally own the gun.

[EEllis]

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".

Which is why though he pled guilty and was convicted he never served any time and was just given probation.

[Jumping Frog]

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

One can only hope and pray . . .

[VMI77]

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

You forget that the law only applies to us peons, not our rulers.

[VMI77]

What the dissenting judges had to say (written by Scalia): http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/06/su ... ase-rules/

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

sed.

[OldGrumpy]

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.