Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:47 AM Jun 2014

Supreme Court deals rare blow to gun purchases

Source: Courier-Journal

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a rare blow to the gun lobby Monday by ruling that purchasers must report when they are buying firearms for other people.

The decision upheld two lower courts that had ruled against so-called "straw purchasers," even though the justices acknowledged that Congress left loopholes in gun control laws passed in the 1960s and 1990s.

For gun purchasers to be allowed to buy from licensed dealers without reporting the actual final owners of the firearms, the justices said, would make little sense.

The 5-4 ruling was wriitten by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent for the court's conservatives.

Read more: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2014/06/16/supreme-court-deals-rare-blow-to-gun-purchase/10574215/

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court deals rare blow to gun purchases (Original Post) SecularMotion Jun 2014 OP
The article doesn't say which ones are 5 or 4. yellerpup Jun 2014 #1
they are evilhime Jun 2014 #10
It's sad when you can look at a SC decision these days Flying Squirrel Jun 2014 #22
Thanks for that clarification. yellerpup Jun 2014 #26
So Kennedy was the swing vote?... aggiesal Jun 2014 #27
Gun Nuts everywhere freak out liberal N proud Jun 2014 #2
Fine with me! They SHOULD have to take one in the shorts every so often. calimary Jun 2014 #14
imagine that - even this partisan malicious court sees the need for some controls samsingh Jun 2014 #3
What exactly changed? whatthehey Jun 2014 #4
idk but it made it's way to scotus so there must be something to it leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #5
Nothing -- it was already the law, this upheld it. localroger Jun 2014 #23
Exactly nt Crabby Appleton Jun 2014 #25
makes perfect sense to me whatthehey Jun 2014 #29
Plaintiff wanted a discount localroger Jun 2014 #30
seems stupid to me. Not a bad decision then. nt whatthehey Jun 2014 #32
that's radical. applying a standard mopinko Jun 2014 #6
VERY good news! elleng Jun 2014 #7
Ditto the good news...for a change. SoapBox Jun 2014 #8
This whole system really needs to be tightened up. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #9
TYRANNY! nt onehandle Jun 2014 #11
The neoconservative SCOTUS billh58 Jun 2014 #12
I'm surprised this made it all the way to the SCOTUS NutmegYankee Jun 2014 #13
Well, a lot of things would seem obvious, except with this cockamamie court. calimary Jun 2014 #15
How can this be enforced? louielouie Jun 2014 #16
Kind of assumes smallcat88 Jun 2014 #17
of course it's a split decision barbtries Jun 2014 #18
It was already a Federal felony to be a straw purchaser Crabby Appleton Jun 2014 #19
Abramski v. United States SecularMotion Jun 2014 #20
Aiiiieeee! Obama is takin away my gunz! progressoid Jun 2014 #21
FINALLY, something sensible from SCOTUS blackspade Jun 2014 #24
Different from the usual blows they give gun purchasers. n/t TygrBright Jun 2014 #28
Supreme Court restricts gun buying Judi Lynn Jun 2014 #31

evilhime

(326 posts)
10. they are
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:45 AM
Jun 2014

Writing for the court in a 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the law helps keeps guns out of the hands of those not legally able to buy them, including those with mental illness or previous felony convictions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. from an NBC news article

 

Flying Squirrel

(3,041 posts)
22. It's sad when you can look at a SC decision these days
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:55 PM
Jun 2014

And know exactly how each justice voted simply from the numbers. What a sham the Supreme Court is. Why do we even have it?

aggiesal

(8,864 posts)
27. So Kennedy was the swing vote?...
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:45 PM
Jun 2014

The RW noise machine is going to blast Kennedy, so this doesn't happen again.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
3. imagine that - even this partisan malicious court sees the need for some controls
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:56 AM
Jun 2014

on firearms.

imagine what would happen if we had replaced scalia, Thomas, and their gang of thugs with real independent thoughtful judges. Fewer shootings I would think.

 

leftyohiolib

(5,917 posts)
5. idk but it made it's way to scotus so there must be something to it
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:17 AM
Jun 2014

"I cannot buy for others" maybe that is what is being challenged in court. probably should read the whole thing and the decision

localroger

(3,605 posts)
23. Nothing -- it was already the law, this upheld it.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:56 PM
Jun 2014

What happened was the existing law forbidding you to buy for others was challenged. SC upheld the law.

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)
29. makes perfect sense to me
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:48 PM
Jun 2014

thought it might be something new. Damn strange thing to challenge in the first place - do you really want to be a plaintiff on record as saying you intend to buy guns for other people? What good reason could there be for that?

localroger

(3,605 posts)
30. Plaintiff wanted a discount
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:58 PM
Jun 2014

Discount was available to veterans (plaintiff) but not the real buyer (non-veteran). Which is, of course, just a dodge for challenging the banning of straw buys for other reasons, but they did paint up that turd so it looked like a blade of grass if not a flower.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
9. This whole system really needs to be tightened up.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:36 AM
Jun 2014

It's a pain in the ass, as it is, and the door is pretty much wide open for miscreants.


I don't see any way to work it, other than registration for all. Expand NFA registry, and re-open it. Solves a lot of problems.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
12. The neoconservative SCOTUS
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:51 AM
Jun 2014

"gun faction" was barely defeated this time, but their allegiance to the right-wing extremist gun lobby shows through clearly. Tony The Turd may miss an NRA paycheck because he couldn't keep all of his boys in line on this one.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
13. I'm surprised this made it all the way to the SCOTUS
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:54 AM
Jun 2014

Straw purchases would make background checks useless. This seems like an obvious decision.

smallcat88

(426 posts)
17. Kind of assumes
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:28 PM
Jun 2014

that people who make straw purchases are suddenly going to start telling the truth. Sounds difficult to enforce and can guarantee there are already people coming up with ways to 'get around it'. Yes, finally a good ruling but don't think it goes far enough. This article didn't say anything about fines for breaking this law. Small victory but let's keep going . . .

barbtries

(28,702 posts)
18. of course it's a split decision
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:46 PM
Jun 2014

it would be hard to overstate how important it will be to elect another democrat to the presidency

Crabby Appleton

(5,231 posts)
19. It was already a Federal felony to be a straw purchaser
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:46 PM
Jun 2014

when buying from a licensed dealer, that court merely reaffirmed the legality of this existing law/

see question 11.a on Form 4473 and top of page 2

I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.


http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
20. Abramski v. United States
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:49 PM
Jun 2014
Issues: Does the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibit a lawful gun-purchaser from stating that they are the actual buyer when they are purchasing the gun for another person?

Oral argument:
January 22, 2014

Court below:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

In the fall of 2009, Bruce Abramski purchased a handgun for his uncle and indicated on the required form that he was the “actual buyer” of the gun. Before Abramski made the purchase, the uncle sent Abramski a check to cover the cost of the gun. After buying the gun, Abramski transferred ownership of the firearm to his uncle at a local gun store in a different state. Both Abramski and his uncle are lawful gun owners. After the transfer, the government criminally prosecuted Abramski for making a false statement claiming he was the “actual buyer” of the gun. Abramski argued on appeal that the relevant provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 do not apply when the purchaser intends to resell the gun to another lawful purchaser. That argument was rejected by the Fourth Circuit, which held that the identity of the purchaser is always a fact material to the sale and that the gun dealer was required to record the identity of the intended owner. The United States argues for affirmation that the Gun Control Act prohibits Abramski from lying about the identity of the actual purchaser, which makes the sale illegal and undermines the purpose of the law. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will settle a circuit split regarding the lawfulness of this type of intermediary gun purchase. This decision will also establish whether an individual may ever buy a gun on behalf of another buyer.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties:

When a person buys a gun intending to later sell it to someone else, the government often prosecutes the initial buyer under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6) for making a false statement about the identity of the buyer that is "material to the lawfulness of the sale." These prosecutions rely on the court-created "straw purchaser" doctrine, a legal fiction that treats the ultimate recipient of a firearm as the "actual buyer," and the immediate purchaser as a mere "straw man."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1493

Judi Lynn

(160,217 posts)
31. Supreme Court restricts gun buying
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:16 AM
Jun 2014

Supreme Court restricts gun buying

Upholds ban on purchases for another
June 17, 2014 12:00 AM

By Robert Barnes / The Washington Post


WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court said Monday that the federal government may strictly enforce a law that prohibits straw purchases of guns intended for others, siding with gun control groups and the Obama administration.

The court by a 5-4 vote upheld the conviction of Bruce James Abramski Jr., a former police officer in Virginia, who bought a Glock handgun for his uncle in Easton, Pa., hoping to get a discount on the sale. Because both men were eligible to own guns, Mr. Abramski claimed that he had not run afoul of the law.

But Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court’s liberals plus Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the government had good reason to prevent “straw purchasers” and insist that the person who buys a gun be the weapon’s legitimate owner. Background checks of those buying guns keep them out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill, she said, and also allow law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes back to their purchaser.

“Abramski’s reading would undermine — indeed, for all important purposes, would virtually repeal — the gun law’s core provision,” Justice Kagan wrote. She added, “Putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw.”

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2014/06/17/Supreme-Court-restricts-gun-buying/stories/201406170079#ixzz34sWtkg1t

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court deals rare ...