Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama’s radical, gun-control aims

This is a discussion on Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama’s radical, gun-control aims within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; MILLER: Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama's gun-control aims - Washington Times ATF using straw purchase law to expand government control of private ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
Like Tree61Likes

Thread: Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama’s radical, gun-control aims

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,641

    Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama’s radical, gun-control aims

    MILLER: Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama's gun-control aims - Washington Times


    ATF using straw purchase law to expand government control of private firearms transfers


    The Abramski ruling will be key to determining how far President Obama can push his gun-control agenda. Mr. Obama wants to expand background checks to include private transactions so that the government would know exactly who has a gun. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
    The federal government is deliberately twisting the intent of a congressional statute to lure more people into its web.
    This is the exact reason why presidential appointments is so very dangerous.

    We need to be keeping a close watch on this.

    Our RKBA is in the cross-hairs of the liberals and their communist agenda.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,167
    I'm not sure whether this will limit Obama's gun control agenda, but it certainly exemplifies it.
    ANGLICO and gatorbait51 like this.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array WrongRecroom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    AZ moutain lands
    Posts
    3,718
    This is very good or very bad .. If this is a lose then this could be seen as a OK on banning PPT from what I have read .. But if a win this could strengthen PPT
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    "Vous ne les laisserez pas passer, mes camarades"
    I am not a lawyer .. Just a dog typing on the internet ..Spelling media apparatus male portatili. Malo me non reprehendo
    "We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."Chesty Puller

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,108
    Was the buyer in the original transaction, and that transaction was documented, though perhaps intent on making a buck based on market conditions.

    The other guy was the buyer in the next transaction, and the transfer was documented there as well.

    Little different than buying a product for $1 and the next day getting offered $1.50 for it and deciding to sell. But, realizing the market conditions ahead of time makes one a felon? Hard to distinguish between what the ATF wants it to be, and what a normal, everyday resale to make a profit is. What, doing so 1yr afterwards is fine, and so is 9mos later, but 8mos later or 2 days later isn't?

    Still, if "straw" purchases as a legal definition are to have any meaning whatsoever, any resale of any firearm within X days of original purchase must be all seen as the same thing (at least IMO): overtly criminal, or benignly irrelevant.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,254
    Simple if you can not pass gun control then just make everyone a felon and problem is solved
    CIBMike and gatorbait51 like this.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Brass63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,543
    That added question on the gun purchasing form is a perfect example of bureaucratic bullying. They've intentionally set a legal trap for folks who have no intent for criminal mischief.
    This hits close to home for me because I want to give each of my kids a pistol for their 21st birthday.
    How can I even do that legally?
    There has to be a better/constitutional way to address gun-running without stripping law- abiding citizens of their right to give a new gun as a gift or help out a friend.
    Nmuskier and gatorbait51 like this.
    The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    Justice Antonin Scalia was the most ardent in pointing out that the government was out of bounds in its pursuit of Mr. Abramski.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  “[I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.”

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    1,420
    Like Brass said, you can no longer buy a firearm as a gift. You cannot buy a .22 rifle for your 16 yr old child. Worse yet, look at the implications in conjunction with the progressive "universal background checks". The gov. would know every firearm transaction via form 4473. They could then selectively prosecute any transaction under the premise that you did not indicate your intent to sell the gun at a later date. This would effectively criminalize the entire used gun market.

    Oops! Did I stumble across something?
    StormRhydr and gatorbait51 like this.

  10. #9
    Member Array mnmbrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    184
    So wait a minute. IF I understand this correctly the ATF is interpreting the question to mean once you buy the firearm you are agreeing to never gift or sell that firearm? That would never fly. I cannot guarantee I will never sell any of my firearms let alone gift them to one of the kids. So by that definition everyone who answers yes to that question is potentially being untruthful? Therefore disqualified from that purchase or when that firearm is transferred the original owner now becomes a felon???? It also is a huge slap to capitalism and my ability to buy something now and sell later at a potential profit. Lets hope SCOTUS gets this one right.
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array tdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,571
    This is an interpretation that would effectively end any father to son or parent to child firearm tradition. It is a way to criminalize not only firearms but parenting. If this is upheld then governmental interest in financial transactions could be used to criminalize any transaction taking place without government approval. Can anyone say "Mark of the Beast"?
    NONAME762 and gatorbait51 like this.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    I "think" the technical "issue" here is the one party sent the money prior to the purchase so "legally" the first party was not buying for himself but for another as he'd already been paid for the pistol he was then buying .... ??????

    Still think it is stupid but I believe that is "the issue" the ATF is leaning on
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  “[I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.”

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    I "think" the technical "issue" here is the one party sent the money prior to the purchase so "legally" the first party was not buying for himself but for another as he'd already been paid for the pistol he was then buying .... ??????

    Still think it is stupid but I believe that is "the issue" the ATF is leaning on
    The article did not state that timeline.
    CIBMike and gatorbait51 like this.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array lionround's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    I "think" the technical "issue" here is the one party sent the money prior to the purchase so "legally" the first party was not buying for himself but for another as he'd already been paid for the pistol he was then buying .... ??????

    Still think it is stupid but I believe that is "the issue" the ATF is leaning on
    Do you have a source for that?
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    -- Steven Wright
    1950 Colt .38 Police Positive Special
    2013 SCCY 9mm CPX-2 Stainless Steel
    US Army 1973-1977, 95B

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    Source is linked in post #1

    Mr. Abramski, a former police officer, bought the firearm in his home state of Virginia in 2009 because he could get a good price as former law enforcement.

    His uncle, Angel Alvarez, sent a check for $400 with the note “Glock 19 handgun” in the memo line.

    Mr. Abramski called three licensed firearms dealers in advance to ensure he did the transaction lawfully.

    Like I said I don't agree but I "think" that is exactly what they're trying to push here
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  “[I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.”

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,917
    It's a bit intimidating to consider the implications of this decision. 9 men and women may rule the fate of our ability to purchase a gun for a child or spouse.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

based on the supreme court ruling can a father buy his son a gun for a birthday present any more

,

ruling on abramski

Click on a term to search for related topics.