NRA loses a gun case at the Supreme Court

[Jhhnn]

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.

Wut?

Pretty amazing assertion there, supported on thin air...

 

[irishScott]

I'm still wondering exactly what the NRA lost. I'm an NRA member and I'm perfectly fine with the SCOTUS decision. That article is meaningless HuffPost fluff at its finest.

"ZOMG THE NRA LOST ARGUABLY THE MOST MINOR GUN CASE EVER! GUN CONTROL ISN'T DEAD YET!!!" Rather pathetic really if that's the best they can muster for a rallying cry.

Also the Huffington Post has a very "Huffy" page blatantly devoted to trashing the NRA. I would take their reporting on anything gun-related with a very large grain of salt.


As for the decision: You don't lie on a federal document. There are consequences if you do, even if no one gets hurt. This one guy has just met lady law, that's all.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm still wondering exactly what the NRA lost. I'm an NRA member and I'm perfectly fine with the SCOTUS decision. That article is meaningless HuffPost fluff at its finest.

"ZOMG THE NRA LOST ARGUABLY THE MOST MINOR GUN CASE EVER! GUN CONTROL ISN'T DEAD YET!!!" Rather pathetic really if that's the best they can muster for a rallying cry.

Also the Huffington Post has a very "Huffy" page blatantly devoted to trashing the NRA. I would take their reporting on anything gun-related with a very large grain of salt.


As for the decision: You don't lie on a federal document. There are consequences if you do, even if no one gets hurt. This one guy has just met lady law, that's all.

Why did the NRA take it clear to the SCOTUS if they weren't trying to make a big deal out of it?

 

[irishScott]

Why did the NRA take it clear to the SCOTUS if they weren't trying to make a big deal out of it?

Why wouldn't a lobbyist organization attempt to use convenient litigation to further its agenda?

I'm just saying this isn't by any means a "defeat". Literally nothing has been lost in terms of gun rights as a result of this decision; and compared to other recent victories such as Heller this is like mildly scraping your knee after making a touchdown.

 

[irishScott]

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?

Screw length of time, just buy the thing, put exactly 1 round through it, decide you "didn't like the feel" and sell it as practically new. Hell you could even market it as "partially broken in". I'll admit I'd like a firmer definition, but if the idea is to give the gun as a gift then there you go.

As for collections/investment, collecting itself would probably hold up in court as motive for buying/selling even in short order.

At the end of the day, the critical point is that the initial purchase was buying it for yourself. I'm not sure about the details of this case, but I imagine he could have made up some complete bullshit about why he bought the gun for himself and gotten off.

 

[WackyDan]

The point of the case is whether or not a third party can buy a gun for you, but use their information on the background check. If it was legal, then the whole background check system falls apart. Criminals could just use a clean third party to buy them guns.

The premise of private sales between individuals (where legal) is that the seller believes that the buyer is not a convicted felon and would pass a background check. In your scenario, it is straw purchasing regardless of whether or not the buyer is a criminal or not.

This guy was wrong. He didn't do any harm, but he straw purchased a firearm for his uncle who lived out of state which in some cases can have other ramifications.

That he chose to do so without thinking that it might indeed be questionable is entirely on him.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I wonder how many suckers... er I mean members the NRA duped into donating money to fight that case.

 

[irishScott]

I wonder how many suckers... er I mean members the NRA duped into donating money to fight that case.

Given that virtually all of the NRA junk/begging for money mail I've received for the last few months has been talking about bills/amendments that haven't even reached committee and the fall elections, I'm pretty sure fighting this case was a fairly small portion of the budget. And like the article said, if one more justice had shifted their way it could have been a massive victory. Not that I think NICS should be disbanded, but a good shake up could make way for some decent reforms (making it available to private individuals outside of an FFL, explicitly allowing the purchase of firearms as "gifts" if the recipient can pass the background check, etc).

If the NRA has "duped" us, it certainly has a strange way of showing it given the legislative and judicial victories of the last few years.

 

[jpeyton]

This isn't really a loss, it just means the status quo will remain.

The NRA is doing really well since Sandy Hook. Membership is way up, money in the bank is up, firearms ownership is rising, gun sales are near record levels.

Speak with your wallet. The country is basically telling Bloomberg and his gun control agenda to fack off.

 

[irishScott]

This isn't really a loss, it just means the status quo will remain.

The NRA is doing really well since Sandy Hook. Membership is way up, money in the bank is up, firearms ownership is rising, gun sales are near record levels.

Speak with your wallet. The country is basically telling Bloomberg and his gun control agenda to fack off.

Even better than wallets is votes, letters, faxes and phone calls. The NRA can bring millions of them to bear, the gun control movement can only buy spooky TV ads that have never worked.

 

[Zebo]

Dont even agree with background checks. For idiot public consumption does nothing. All it does is cost money and inconvenience law abiding citizens. If I were a crazed felon why would I care what law is? Id buy a deserialized gun on a street corner, cheaper mind you than bass pro, like all the other drug dealers and that would be the end of it.

Not to mention constitutional prohibitions on infringement. What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? Guess it is for our esteemed justices but not to me... like all the other rights justices are abrogating with fanciful language 2nd is basically dead. Hell whole BoR is basically dead. Go down the list. warrantless wiretaps.. secret courts...free speech zones..statutory asset forfeiture etc. Might as well wipe your ass with BoR.

 

[JEDIYoda]

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...-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.

way too funny

 

[Jhhnn]

And like the article said, if one more justice had shifted their way it could have been a massive victory.

Heh. First you represent it as no big deal, now it's a major victory denied.

Remarkable.

 

[Zebo]

This isn't really a loss, it just means the status quo will remain.

The NRA is doing really well since Sandy Hook. Membership is way up, money in the bank is up, firearms ownership is rising, gun sales are near record levels.

Speak with your wallet. The country is basically telling Bloomberg and his gun control agenda to fack off.

It's sad we have to pay orgs like ACLU and NRA to protect our constitutional rights when it's legislators job which they work endlessly to annul. Is that what they mean by "freedom is not free". I'm in Lifetime member.

 

[irishScott]

Heh. First you represent it as no big deal, now it's a major victory denied.

Remarkable.

Seriously?

If I go to a casino and lose $100 when I could have won $50,000 if I'd been luckier, is it really a big deal? Not so much.

 

[irishScott]

In any case, I find the Huffington Post's point that the NRA is staying silent on this issue due to their defeat to be poorly thought out, probably intentionally so.

The NRA has responded to past defeats by doing precisely the opposite. They hold up major defeats as proof that the threat is real and that they need more money. Hell they hold up virtually nonexistent threats as such in their twice-weekly junk mail. NRA members won't abandon the NRA because they lost a single, arguably long-shot court case with no real consequences other than maintaining the status quo. And so long as gun control proponents continue to look down on NRA members in this regard, they will continue to get screwed over and retreat to their echo chamber.

 

[Jhhnn]

Seriously?

If I go to a casino and lose $100 when I could have won $50,000 if I'd been luckier, is it really a big deal? Not so much.

That doesn't change the fact that the NRA tried to make it a big deal & failed.

Worse than that, actually, considering the loss cut off avenues of attack on background checks almost entirely, affirmed the govt's right to use them.

 

[Angry Irishman]

That doesn't change the fact that the NRA tried to make it a big deal & failed.

Worse than that, actually, considering the loss cut off avenues of attack on background checks almost entirely, affirmed the govt's right to use them.

The governments rights....what a contradiction of what used to be an American ideal of a government for the people.

 

[irishScott]

That doesn't change the fact that the NRA tried to make it a big deal & failed.

Worse than that, actually, considering the loss cut off avenues of attack on background checks almost entirely, affirmed the govt's right to use them.

That's funny, because if the NRA wanted to make a big deal out of it they certainly didn't enlist their members all that much. This is the first I've heard of the case and I'm on the email list, subscribed to their youtube channels, get their mail and their primary magazine. None of it that I've seen has been about this case or referenced this case, it's all focused elsewhere. Hell I recall getting a piece of mail last week about some amendment to some bill I'd never heard of and haven't heard about since. Apparently that trumped this case in priority.

As a staunchly pro-gun person I don't feel threatened in the least by this ruling, and I don't know anyone who would. I could see the Gun Owners of America being a little riled up due to their more radical stance, but all they really ever do is bang pots and pans.

All the gun control advocates are doing by playing this up is displaying how little they understand their adversaries and how little they have to point to in the way of political victories. It's that underestimation and arrogance that has largely led to their continual defeats of late, and if this is any indication that pattern is due to continue; this gives me confidence.

No one, not even any NRA members I know of, seriously thought NICS was going anywhere. I guess the NRA figured that it was worth a shot, and it failed. Whoop-dee-doo. Let's go win some elections! (Well, my vote will depend on other issues as well as guns, but you get my point)

 

[JulesMaximus]

Given that virtually all of the NRA junk/begging for money mail I've received for the last few months has been talking about bills/amendments that haven't even reached committee and the fall elections, I'm pretty sure fighting this case was a fairly small portion of the budget. And like the article said, if one more justice had shifted their way it could have been a massive victory. Not that I think NICS should be disbanded, but a good shake up could make way for some decent reforms (making it available to private individuals outside of an FFL, explicitly allowing the purchase of firearms as "gifts" if the recipient can pass the background check, etc).

If the NRA has "duped" us, it certainly has a strange way of showing it given the legislative and judicial victories of the last few years.

I made the mistake of joining the NRA shortly after I bought my first gun in the early 1990s. I opted for the "free" field and stream magazine which was just an advertisement for the NRA with very little actual content. What really put me off was the constant mailers asking for donations and their extremely biased polls.

I cancelled after 1 year and never joined again. This gun owner will never give the NRA another dollar of his money. They just don't represent me at all.

 

[Zebo]

Dems dont represent me on guns because I feel like they have a lot of ignorant reactionary members in thier party like feinstein But I still support them. No such thing as perfection. Not with anything... Girls. Video game. pacs. On balance NRA does more good than harm so I'm all for them. I dont get the mags though. Told them dont send crap to my house waste of paper and I'm green like that.

 

[xj0hnx]

The point of the case is whether or not a third party can buy a gun for you, but use their information on the background check. If it was legal, then the whole background check system falls apart. Criminals could just use a clean third party to buy them guns.

LOLwut? Criminals already do that, it's called a straw purchase, allowing a NICS approved person to purchase a NICS approved person a firearm isn't going to change anything.

People have been clamoring for that for years. So many C&R FFLs have asked for access to NICS and been denied that it was a FAQ on the BATFE website (although curiously absent now... I'll see if I have a copy in my bound book).

You're operating under the mistaken impression that the gun control lobby "only" wants improved background checks. They want to backdoor ban in the same manner they did machine guns - create a dam and then close it.

Yea, it's fucking absurd that NICS isn't accessible to anyone selling a firearm.

The machine gun ban is it's own special kind of absurdity, and the reason I wish Rangel would choke on a cock and die.

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.

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.

 

[jpeyton]

I made the mistake of joining the NRA shortly after I bought my first gun in the early 1990s. I opted for the "free" field and stream magazine which was just an advertisement for the NRA with very little actual content. What really put me off was the constant mailers asking for donations and their extremely biased polls.

I cancelled after 1 year and never joined again. This gun owner will never give the NRA another dollar of his money. They just don't represent me at all.

I joined the NRA right after Sandy Hook. It was disgusting watching those ambulance-chasing vultures (led by Bloomberg and Feinstein) grandstand after every tent-pole shooting event to further their cause.

I've probably donated at least 3 times since then, in addition to my renewal. After watching the SAFE Act pass in NY, I figured out the end-game of gun control activists and decided there could be no compromise.

 

[Fenixgoon]

that is considered a straw purchase. 404 outrage not found.

 

[irishScott]

I made the mistake of joining the NRA shortly after I bought my first gun in the early 1990s. I opted for the "free" field and stream magazine which was just an advertisement for the NRA with very little actual content. What really put me off was the constant mailers asking for donations and their extremely biased polls.

I cancelled after 1 year and never joined again. This gun owner will never give the NRA another dollar of his money. They just don't represent me at all.

I get the American Rifleman, and while there's a good bit of dedicated "how awesome the NRA is" material there's also a lot of good articles on firearms and firearms history. Decent enough for $35 a year.

I agree the mailers are usually quite stupid (reading them is comical) but if it gets the NRA money and furthers its capabilities, then so be it. I don't agree with everything NRA, but they get a lot of stuff right IMO. Meanwhile the other options involve extreme radicalism (ie Gun Owners of America), tacit acceptance without supporting either side, or siding with those attempting to legislate firearms they don't like out of existence; even while said people occasionally bald-faced admit that such legislation would not stop gun crime.

If the choice is NRA vs Feinstein, Bloomberg et al, I'll take the NRA every time without a second thought. Whatever their flaws, and whatever you may attribute their motivations to, their actions have consistently protected and expanded the rights of US citizens, something few political groups can claim.