"Straw Man" Supreme Court Ruling

[Rancho Roy 264]

Supreme Court Rules on “Straw Man” Gun Sales Case

by GUNSAMERICA ACTUAL on JUNE 16, 2014

Related Tags: Buzz, R2KBA

Send to Kindle

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the government can enforce the “Straw Man” sale rule even when the person a gun is being bought for is lawfully allowed to own a firearm. Several different Federal Circuit courts had previously ruled on both sides of this issue, prompting the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, adopted a narrow interpretation of the law, saying the “actual transferee/buyer” must acknowledge that he intends to resell the gun when he buys it, even if the eventual owner is legally entitled to own a gun.

The case involves Bruce Abramski, a former police officer who bought a gun for his uncle, taking advantage of a discount price offered to active and former police officers. Although he made it clear to the dealer that he was buying the gun for his uncle, Abramski checked the box on the ATF form indicating that he was the actual buyer. He bought the gun in Virginia and went to visit his uncle in Pennsylvania, where they went to a gun dealer to complete the transfer and where his uncle passed the firearms check. Abramski was convicted of making false statements on BATFE Form 4473

Abramski appealed on the grounds that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was not intended to restrict transfers between law-abiding individuals and that the question on Form 4473 was illegal. He claimed that the Straw Sale provision only applies when the ultimate buyer of the gun is someone who could not himself legally buy a gun. Based on this ruling, the “Straw Man” sale rule means that no one may ever lawfully buy a gun for another person.

 

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 1,170]

That's like 2 1/2 year old news. Point?

[Rancho Roy 264]

A lawyer friend just sent it to me. I know it had been ruled on in a lower court. I did not know the SC had already ruled on it.

 

Guess I should have read the date!

[Lost Trail 115]

A lawyer friend just sent it to me. I know it had been ruled on in a lower court. I did not know the SC had already ruled on it.

 

Guess I should have read the date!

Not to knit-pic, but anything showing a 5-4 decision has to be a year or more old due to Justice Scalia's death on Feb 13, 2016.

[Jed I. Master 0]

So what's the appropriate action if buying a gun for your kid or wife? I'm buying it, but I acknowledge that I am not the intended recipient. Even though they are allowed to own or buy a gun.

[John Boy 843]

So what's the appropriate action if buying a gun for your kid or wife?

 

... in a five-to-four decision, adopted a narrow interpretation of the law, saying the “actual transferee/buyer” must acknowledge that he intends to resell the gun when he buys it, even if the eventual owner is legally entitled to own a gun.

 

The wife or kid goes to the FFL and completes the BATFE Form 4473 form so the NICS check can be done. The seller can legally charge $1.00 to the kid or wife to consummate the sell requirement in a given state if no permits are required to a handgun on the part of the kid or wife and they are a legal owner of firearms. Long arms, transfer form completed with no money involved but again the receiver has to have verification being a legal gun owner. In NJ, it's the receiver's FID number

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 1,032]

You buy the gun for yourself. It is now your property.

 

Since it is your property, you may legally sell it to someone else. Just follow the rules for a private sale in your state.

[Seldom Seen #16162 28]

So what's the appropriate action if buying a gun for your kid or wife? I'm buying it, but I acknowledge that I am not the intended recipient. Even though they are allowed to own or buy a gun.

 

 

 

The wife or kid goes to the FFL and completes the BATFE Form 4473 form so the NICS check can be done. The seller can legally charge $1.00 to the kid or wife to consummate the sell requirement in a given state if no permits are required to a handgun on the part of the kid or wife and they are a legal owner of firearms. Long arms, transfer form completed with no money involved but again the receiver has to have verification being a legal gun owner. In NJ, it's the receiver's FID number

 

Not according to Federal Law.

 

Gifting is specifically allowed under Federal Law. You can legally purchase a firearm with the intent to give it as a gift. Common reasons are as Birthday or Christmas gift. Nor is there a rule on long you must own the gun before gifting it. I can buy a firearm, walk out of the store, say Merry Christmas and hand it to the person I intended to own it .

 

The person the gun is being gifted to must be allowed to legally own the firearm.

 

State laws are another story. The buyer must comply with both Federal and State Laws. In some States their law is more restrictive. John Boy lives in New Jersey so the buyer must also follow New Jersey law.

 

Those of us that live in Free States do not have to worry about silly FOID cards, registration and waiting periods.

 

In the Supreme Court case Bruce Abramski's uncle who lived out-of-state gave him the money in the form of check to buy a gun for him. Abramski was arrested when the Police who were searching Abramski's home on the drug search warrant found his uncle's cancelled check on which his uncle had wrote it for a gun on the check.

[Rye Miles #13621 6,188]

You buy the gun for yourself. It is now your property.

 

Since it is your property, you may legally sell it to someone else. Just follow the rules for a private sale in your state.

That's what we do here in Ohio!

[VICIOUS, SASS#8014 37]

buy it .fire it once, do not like it, get rid, sell give away? sounds ok. Heck lots of us just kinda lease a gun to shoot till bored with it then dispose for a different type.

[J.D. Daily 314]

That's what we do here in Ohio!

Not if your uncle is a resident of another state.