NRA loses a gun case at the Supreme Court

[trenchfoot]

I found this webpage fun to read and humorously revealing in nature: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/national-rifle-association-ads-history

edit - apologies, you need to skip the ad first.

 

[irishScott]

I found this webpage fun to read and humorously revealing in nature: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/national-rifle-association-ads-history

edit - apologies, you need to skip the ad first.

If we're going to judge all organizations by their advertisements, then we might as well kill ourselves. There's nothing "revealed" here other than historical marketing strategies.

Like I said though, articles like this give me confidence. It's amazing how dismissive the gun control advocates remain despite the NRA's recent string of victories. It's almost like they care more about validating themselves then actually doing anything productive...

 

[Thebobo]

I dont think Wayne LaPierre was born in the USA. I want to see his birth certificate.

​

 

[TerryMathews]

I dont think Wayne LaPierre was born in the USA. I want to see his birth certificate.

​

when he runs for an office that has strict citizenship requirements, you can.

 

[PokerGuy]

Whoever paid for the gun is the buyer, it's pretty simple. If dude paid for it, then his uncle gave him the money, the dude was the buyer, if uncle gave him the money, and dude used the money to purchase it, then uncle's the buyer. Rocket science it is not.

So... I hand you a $10 and you go to the store and pick up cigs for me. Who exactly is the buyer? Who do they ask for ID at the store as the buyer? Obviously, you are considered the buyer, even though I provided the money for you to buy. So no, it's not nearly that clear cut. That he knowingly or unknowingly filled out the form wrong is pretty clear, but the logic of who is the "final" or "real" buyer is far from clear.

 

[fskimospy]

So... I hand you a $10 and you go to the store and pick up cigs for me. Who exactly is the buyer? Who do they ask for ID at the store as the buyer? Obviously, you are considered the buyer, even though I provided the money for you to buy. So no, it's not nearly that clear cut. That he knowingly or unknowingly filled out the form wrong is pretty clear, but the logic of who is the "final" or "real" buyer is far from clear.

It basically comes down to the question of who Congress would consider a buyer to be when they wrote the law. The idea that they would write a law that considered the buyer to be so strictly construed that you could literally circumvent it by standing at the register and handing your money to the person behind you in line beggars belief.

To use Scalia's phrase, "no English speaker would say that".

 

[Brainonska511]

So... I hand you a $10 and you go to the store and pick up cigs for me. Who exactly is the buyer? Who do they ask for ID at the store as the buyer? Obviously, you are considered the buyer, even though I provided the money for you to buy. So no, it's not nearly that clear cut. That he knowingly or unknowingly filled out the form wrong is pretty clear, but the logic of who is the "final" or "real" buyer is far from clear.

5 The dissent claims the answer is easy because “if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speakerwould say that the store ‘sells’ the milk and eggs to me.” Post, at 4. But try a question more similar to the one the gun law’s text raises: If I send my brother to the Apple Store with money and instructions to purchase an iPhone, and then take immediate and sole possession of that device, am I the “person” (or “transferee&#8221 who has bought the phone or is he? Nothing in ordinary English usage compels an answer either way.

And as I posted earlier in the thread, the question is quite clear, giving an example as well that directly pertained to this man's situation:

Question 11.a. asks “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 accompanying instructions for that question provide:
“Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself . . . .You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abramski-v-united-states/

 

[fskimospy]

And as I posted earlier in the thread, the question is quite clear, giving an example as well that directly pertained to this man's situation:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abramski-v-united-states/

I enjoyed the description of Scalia as a "scrabble player trying too hard to prove that triple word score actually does exist".

 

[PokerGuy]

It basically comes down to the question of who Congress would consider a buyer to be when they wrote the law. The idea that they would write a law that considered the buyer to be so strictly construed that you could literally circumvent it by standing at the register and handing your money to the person behind you in line beggars belief.

To use Scalia's phrase, "no English speaker would say that".

As incompetent as congress is and as poorly written (or ambiguous) as many laws are, I certainly wouldn't rule it out. So the court had to decide exactly what was meant. In trying to decide what congress meant (ie, the intent), did congress intend to prevent a firearm getting into the hands of a buyer who can legally purchase one himself? That doesn't make sense either. Regardless, they came to a 5-4 decision. Not nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be, but ultimately not a decision I have a big problem with.

 

[PokerGuy]

And as I posted earlier in the thread, the question is quite clear, giving an example as well that directly pertained to this man's situation:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abramski-v-united-states/

Yes, given the text on the form, including an actual example that should have made it clear to the guy that he was engaging in a straw purchase, I agree with the ruling with regard to the form.