NRA loses a gun case at the Supreme Court

[BoberFett]

The far right wing branch of this Court is totally results oriented and they aren't the least bit reluctant to twist the law into pretzels to arrive at their desired conclusion.

Given the left's history of things such as packing courts and overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause to achieve their goals, this statement amuses me.

 

[TerryMathews]

I personally think to put this issue to bed the ATF needs to update form 4473 to accommodate this legal situation with two legal buyers.

Its a crazy state of affairs that a legal mechanism exists to purchase property on someone's behalf except for firearms. You can even purchase real estate on someone's behalf and that can have significant tax implications.

In my head I envision a 4473-TR form which involves a POA and both the purchaser and final recipient have to pass NICS.

 

[fleshconsumed]

The problem with this case/decision is that the guy violated the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. The letter of the law says you cannot lie on the form, but in spirit the law is designed to keep the guns out of criminals' hands, which is not the case here. Bad law wording. IMO I would have gone with the spirit of the law, no point in punishing law abiding citizen for falling on a technicality.

 

[fskimospy]

How this was not. 9-0 decision is baffling. The guy obviously broke the law. The standard for what constitutes a buyer and seller that conservatives were trying to use is so distorted that they are really trying to say that if you exchange money for an object you have bought something but if you pass that money and the object through a third party you haven't bought anything anymore.

 

[fskimospy]

Given the left's history of things such as packing courts and overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause to achieve their goals, this statement amuses me.

It does make conservative complaints about judicial activism ring pretty hollow though, huh.

 

[Exterous]

How this was not. 9-0 decision is baffling. The guy obviously broke the law. The standard for what constitutes a buyer and seller that conservatives were trying to use is so distorted that they are really trying to say that if you exchange money for an object you have bought something but if you pass that money and the object through a third party you haven't bought anything anymore.

This appears to be the result of an Order of Operations issue:
Scenario 1 (legal)
Buy gun. Use your money. Take gun to another person who is not a convicted felon. Exchange money for gun.

Scenario 2: (illegal)
Get money from buyer. Buy gun from store. Take gun to buyer who is not a convicted felon. Exchange gun for money previously received.

Outside of stated intent there is no time requirement for from 4473 question 11a which places this ruling in a tricky spot in my eyes. The question states: "Are you the actual buyer of this firearm?" He did buy the firearm in as much as he was the one exchanging the money for the gun. (This is where I believe getting the money first comes in to play) I believe the minority opinion attempts to address that by pointing out the definition is quite vague. We now know that intending to buy the gun for yourself for a period of time sufficient to deliver it to the buyer is illegal. However we are left with the question: How long is an acceptable amount of time you have to wait before reselling a gun?

 

[fskimospy]

This appears to be the result of an Order of Operations issue:
Scenario 1 (legal)
Buy gun. Use your money. Take gun to another person who is not a convicted felon. Exchange money for gun.

Scenario 2: (illegal)
Get money from buyer. Buy gun from store. Take gun to buyer who is not a convicted felon. Exchange gun for money previously received.

Outside of stated intent there is no time requirement for from 4473 question 11a which places this ruling in a tricky spot in my eyes. I believe the minority opinion attempts to address that by pointing out the definition is quite vague. We know know that intending to buy the gun for yourself for a period of time to then deliver it to buyer is illegal. However we are left with the question: How long is an acceptable amount of time you have to wait before reselling a gun?

You don't have to wait any time at all, it's all about intent. The guy's intent was clearly to purchase a gun for someone else using their money and give it to them. By any rational standard you are still buying a gun even if you use a third party to do it.

 

[Oldgamer]

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/19/-sp-death-of-the-american-shopping-mall

These pictures are so surreal like out of zombie apocalypse or something. I used to love malls... hang out all weekend with my brothers and friends. Saw Star wars and Indiana jones 4 times on one ticket. We used to skip between movies before credits rolled and matredees would be watching.😛 Great place to meet girls from other schools just awesome pieces of Americana disappearing.

LOL did you post in the wrong thread?

 

[PokerGuy]

You don't have to wait any time at all, it's all about intent. The guy's intent was clearly to purchase a gun for someone else using their money and give it to them. By any rational standard you are still buying a gun even if you use a third party to do it.

Fair enough, but the question / logic over who the "real buyer" is is what created the 5-4. It's not at all as clear cut you make it seem, the logic of making a "final buyer" be considered the "real buyer" comes with all sorts of tricky issues, like the one Scalia brought up about having someone go to the store to buy milk. In that scenario, if someone gives someone else $5 to buy milk at the store, is the person buying the milk at the store the "real buyer", or is it the guy at home who gets the milk? It's obvious that we would consider the guy at the store the "buyer" of the product, yet for this case the majority opinion has created some new logic as to what the "real buyer" is.

 

[fskimospy]

Fair enough, but the question / logic over who the "real buyer" is is what created the 5-4. It's not at all as clear cut you make it seem, the logic of making a "final buyer" be considered the "real buyer" comes with all sorts of tricky issues, like the one Scalia brought up about having someone go to the store to buy milk. In that scenario, if someone gives someone else $5 to buy milk at the store, is the person buying the milk at the store the "real buyer", or is it the guy at home who gets the milk? It's obvious that we would consider the guy at the store the "buyer" of the product, yet for this case the majority opinion has created some new logic as to what the "real buyer" is.

I think that both could be considered buyers. I found Scalia's example and conclusion to be absolutely (and likely intentionally) absurd. If the kid's mom is standing next to him at the register and hands him $5 for milk (we are buying milk in McOwned's world), he hands the bill to the cashier, the cashier hands him the milk, and then he hands the milk to his mom, the idea that she hasn't bought the milk is insane to anyone who speaks and understands English.

Under Scalia's logic, the mom was no party to that whatsoever. That's nuts.

 

[Exterous]

By any rational standard you are still buying a gun even if you use a third party to do it.

It seems many, including several in the Supreme Court disagree with you:

In dissent, Scalia said the “plain language” of the federal gun statute supported Abramski’s argument that he, not his uncle, was the “buyer,” and therefore it wasn’t “material” that he planned to pass along the firearm to someone else. “In ordinary usage, a vendor sells (or delivers or transfers) an item of merchandise to the person who physically appears in his store, selects the item, pays for it, and takes possession of it,” Scalia wrote. “So if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store ‘sells’ the milk and eggs to me.”

Even the majority opinion centered around the intent of the law and not the actual definitions of buyer and seller. References to the purchase were made in regards to the effect on the law as a whole - not an argument as to whether he was actually the buyer

 

[fskimospy]

It seems many, including several in the Supreme Court disagree with you:

Yes, and I think that Scalia is being intentionally dishonest in order to achieve his desired outcome.

I think that lots and lots of people would consider the individual who 1.) supplied the means to purchase an item and 2.) was the recipient of the item to be the person who bought it. Scalia's dissent depends on us accepting his highly dubious statement that no English speaker would come to such a conclusion. Needless to say, he's full of shit.

 

[Exterous]

I see I am bit slow in posting...

I think that both could be considered buyers. I found Scalia's example and conclusion to be absolutely (and likely intentionally) absurd. If the kid's mom is standing next to him at the register and hands him $5 for milk (we are buying milk in McOwned's world), he hands the bill to the cashier, the cashier hands him the milk, and then he hands the milk to his mom, the idea that she hasn't bought the milk is insane to anyone who speaks and understands English.

Under Scalia's logic, the mom was no party to that whatsoever. That's nuts.

The wording doesn't ask if another party is involved - only if you are the buyer. Hence the dissenting opinion citing the vagueness of the wording

 

[Brainonska511]

The wording doesn't ask if another party is involved - only if you are the buyer. Hence the dissenting opinion citing the vagueness of the wording

Is it really vague? As the majority opinion points out, the questions are written as follows (the bolding appears on the form itself):

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/

 

[Exterous]

I think that lots and lots of people would consider the individual who 1.) supplied the means to purchase an item and 2.) was the recipient of the item to be the person who bought it. Scalia's dissent depends on us accepting his highly dubious statement that no English speaker would come to such a conclusion.

The extrapolated definition of buyer is "A person who exchanges money for goods" with no provision for the origination of said money. Now as an English speaker I immediately saw the wording issue on the form. While I can wonder at the intent of the wording the phasing of the form itself if vague and this is supported by the semantics of various English dictionaries.

The decision was not about the correctness of the semantics but the intent of the law

 

[fskimospy]

I see I am bit slow in posting...

The wording doesn't ask if another party is involved - only if you are the buyer. Hence the dissenting opinion citing the vagueness of the wording

The wording on the form explicitly talks about straw purchases, so there's no question that the guy filling out the form knowingly made a false statement. The only question is if the law itself addresses that.

Using Scalia's interpretation of the law, Congress basically meant for background checks to be meaningless. Interpreting the person who supplied the means to purchase an item and was the recipient of that item is a perfectly valid way to construe who the buyer is, and in the scope of the legislation and what it was attempting to accomplish, choosing not to interpret it that way leads to an obviously illogical conclusion.

Scalia, as usual, vacillates between examining what the statute means in its entirety and strict textualism purely out of convenience for whatever goal he is attempting to accomplish.

 

[Exterous]

Is it really vague? As the majority opinion points out, the questions are written as follows:

Ah - I was not aware of that part.

The wording on the form explicitly talks about straw purchases, so there's no question that the guy filling out the form knowingly made a false statement.

While I admit that the full reading of the clause does close that hole I thought was there I would ask how you know that he read that section or was aware of it to show that he 'knowingly' made the false statement.

Ignorance is no defense but we don't know that he saw the example - much like I didn't. Not that it makes much difference

Using Scalia's interpretation of the law, Congress basically meant for background checks to be meaningless. Interpreting the person who supplied the means to purchase an item and was the recipient of that item is a perfectly valid way to construe who the buyer is, and in the scope of the legislation and what it was attempting to accomplish, choosing not to interpret it that way leads to an obviously illogical conclusion.

It has been my experience that the USSC often goes back and forth between intent and semantics although I have not kept track to see if there is a pattern between judges.

Perhaps I am not imaginative enough but I don't see how it would make background checks meaningless? Someone can still buy hundreds or thousands of guns with their own money and then sell of gift them to a third party. The only thing this prevents is that third party from traceably giving money to the buyer in the first place

 

[Brainonska511]

Ah - I was not aware of that part.

Yep. It solves the "gifting" question as well that is brought up. You are considered the buyer if you are legitimately buying the gun as a gift for a third party.

 

[PokerGuy]

Perhaps I am not imaginative enough but I don't see how it would make background checks meaningless? Someone can still buy hundreds or thousands of guns with their own money and then sell of gift them to a third party. The only thing this prevents is that third party from traceably giving money to the buyer in the first place

Actually, as long as the third party gives the buyer the money after the fact, it's still fine, it becomes a simple private sale from the buyer to a third party.

In this case, I don't think there's any doubt that the guy incorrectly filled out the form (knowingly or unknowingly), but clearly preventing guns from getting into the hands of buyers that are "cleared" to buy guns themselves was not the intent of the law. The law was meant to handle the situation where guy A can't himself buy a gun, and so he asks guy B (who can) buy one for him, which is not the case here. I don't have a big problem with either side of the ruling (majority or minority opinion).

 

[WHAMPOM]

RESALE TO A QUALIFIED GUN OWNER!! Geeez!! Honest people leaving a paper trail sure gives COPS an easy way to prosecute a non-crime.
Me thinks someone in uniform had a hard on for the uncle! "GET SOMETHING ON HIM, ANYTHING!"

 

[Knowing]

It was crucial that this decision went the way that it did or people eligible to buy firearms that live in backwards states like Illinois would simply buy out of state and avoid taxes on rights.

This result, however, does beg the question: how long must one possess a firearm before selling it to prove that (s)he didn't have the intention of selling it all along. Suppose there's a limited run of desirable firearms being sold and a buyer buys one with the intent of reselling it once the supply is exhausted - are they a straw buyer even if they might not know that the intended "final owner" even exists?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Seems like a decent logical decision.

NO! The question should read,; "Are you buying this weapon for yourself or another qualified user." YES or NO.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It was crucial that this decision went the way that it did or people eligible to buy firearms that live in backwards states like Illinois would simply buy out of state and avoid taxes on rights.

This result, however, does beg the question: how long must one possess a firearm before selling it to prove that (s)he didn't have the intention of selling it all along. Suppose there's a limited run of desirable firearms being sold and a buyer buys one with the intent of reselling it once the supply is exhausted - are they a straw buyer even if they might not know that the intended "final owner" even exists?

There is no "final owner" you die and your estate goes on the auction block. Seized by the state to fund Medicaid, just got a pamphlet on it, everything goes, bank accounts, life insurance, last will and testament are null and void.

 

[Jhhnn]

When you look at the logic of the merry band of idiots plus Kennedy, they essentially are saying that the ultimate "buyer" of the gun was the uncle in PA, not the guy who actually bought the gun. Since the uncle provided him the money (after the purchase) to make the purchase, that seems reasonable.

That said, I don't see this as a big deal. They basically managed to ensnare a man for getting a gun into the hands of someone who could just as easily have purchased it himself. Ultimately, these laws were intended to keep people who can't buy guns legally from having others buy the gun for them. This particular case obviously wasn't about keeping the guns out of a hand of someone who couldn't legally buy it himself, so it's really kind of dumb.

The guy who bought the gun could have easily bought the gun and simply gifted it to his uncle, or simply bought it and then re-sold it to his uncle later, without breaking any laws. So basically someone wanted to play "gotcha!" with him.

The article infers that Abramski received the money before he bought the gun, not after.

Either way, he agreed to make a straw purchase & committed fraud when he lied on the form. Lying to the govt is stupid- ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby.

What's even dumber is the NRA trying to make this guy into a poster boy for Freedumb, tear down the whole background check system with a back door maneuver.

Even if it wasn't about guns, fraud is fraud & a piss poor launch pad for a favorable judicial ruling.

Gun show sponsors should be required to provide background check services for private parties in attendance through a codified legal mechanism. They can cover the cost on a per transaction basis or as part of the attendance fees.

Private parties should merely be required to fill out a downloadable bill of sale form, in triplicate, counter signed by both parties with the pertinent info, including ID numbers of the firearms & the persons. Each party keeps a copy, the seller sends the third form to the govt via registered mail, puts the delivery receipt with his copy of the bill of sale. The good-faith seller is thus held harmless. Potential buyers should be able to use an online form to determine their eligibility. It seems likely that people who can't pass a background check know or should know they can't, anyway. Full background checks are impractical for truly private transactions. It won't stop dishonest sellers, but will rather protect honest ones.

I offer that as a gun owner, & also offer that only a fool transfers ownership of a registered firearm w/o a proper bill of sale signed by the buyer right next to their driver's license #.

 

[OCGuy]

Not even an important case.