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.
[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.
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?
[/quote]
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.
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.
They were looking to put a case on the guy before they even knew about this transfer. They had arrested him for bank robbery and they had reports of him making death threats on police officers. For some reason after having him in custody for months they drop those charges but then the Feds went after him on this gun charge. This was a charge that they wouldn't of bothered with for anyone else but just something because they couldn't get him for what they wanted.
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.
Jumping Frog wrote:
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?
Hmmm... Especially if that includes caffein or nicotine. Note that it's "unlawful user of, OR addicted to"
Can't include caffeine or nicotine, which afaik are not "controlled substances".
This also reads to me like prescribed (medical) marjuana would still mean "no".
I believe under federal law, medical marijuana is not legal. Anyone that smokes pot in CO therefore cannot legally buy a firearm if they answer the question on the 4473 truthfully.
goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.
The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.
goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.
The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.
Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.
I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.
goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.
The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.
Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.
I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.
The thing of it is that it wasn't really law, it was a policy the BATFE adopted.
goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.
The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.
Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.
I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.
The thing of it is that it wasn't really law, it was a policy the BATFE adopted.
Now it is. Correct?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.
The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.
Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.
I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.
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?
As I recall, the legislature only passed laws requiring that all buyers from firearms businesses must be able to pass a NICS background check. It is reasonable for BATFE to develop a form for the buyer to enter personal information in order to determine who he is for the purposes of the check. However, BATFE designed a form requiring more information than was required. Such as the questionnaire, and more importantly (IMO) the make, model and serial number of the firearm being purchased. That information is not required in order to pass the check, should not be required (again IMO), to purchase a firearm. There is also no legislative basis for requiring information about multiple purchases, etc.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
But note that scotus has ruled is it still just a batfe regulation?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
It's ironic that our government of "we the people" is so focused on the minutiae of gun administration policy, and yet so lax on those who wantonly break our immigration laws.
This is draconian. Thugs wont do the paper work.
The anti's are breaking the bundle one twig at a time. It wont be long before the gov morphs this into a way to nail us for not using proper punctuation when buying our spouse or children guns.
“In the world of lies, truth-telling is a hanging offense"
~Unknown
Jim Beaux wrote:It's ironic that our government of "we the people" is so focused on the minutiae of gun administration policy, and yet so lax on those who wantonly break our immigration laws.
This is draconian. Thugs wont do the paper work.
The anti's are breaking the bundle one twig at a time. It wont be long before the gov morphs this into a way to nail us for not using proper punctuation when buying our spouse or children guns.
Heck, It won't be long before they regulate what kind of light bulbs we use... Oh, wait...
(Sorry for the thread drift.)
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
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.
mojo84 wrote:But note that scotus has ruled is it still just a batfe regulation?
It is a regulation but "The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter" it is allowed by law and with a penalty dictated by law if one violates those regulations. The BATFE didn't come up with the crime or penalty the legislature did. "knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter .........Whoever knowingly violates .... shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. "
