Abramski v US cert petition ("straw purchase" for otherwise legal buyer)

[jrosenberger]

I found out about yet another gun rights related cert petition yesterday:
http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/~/media/Files/AbramskiPetitionforWritofCertiorari.ashx

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
fi ction that treats the ultimate recipient of a fi rearm as
the “actual buyer,” and the immediate purchaser as a
mere “straw man.”
The lower courts uniformly agree that a buyer’s intent
to resell a gun to someone who cannot lawfully buy it is
a fact “material to the lawfulness of the sale.” But the
Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have split with the
Fifth and Ninth Circuits about whether the same is true
when the ultimate recipient can lawfully buy a gun. The
questions presented are:
1. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a fi rearm to another lawful
buyer in the future a fact “material to the lawfulness of
the sale” of the fi rearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)?
2. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a fi rearm to another lawful
buyer in the future a piece of information “required . . .
to be kept” by a federally licensed fi rearm dealer under
§ 924(a)(1)(A).

The short version: Abramski, a police officer, bought an LE discount Glock from an FFL in his home state of VA, drove to an FFL in his uncle's state of PA and transferred it to his uncle. The feds found out about it and prosecuted him for a straw purchase. Apparently the 5th and 9th circuits say what he did was fine, whereas the 4th (where this is being appealed from), 6th, and 11th say it's illegal.

There are no Second Amendment issues raised in the petition, it's simply a statutory construction argument. It'll be interesting to see if it gets granted. The well developed circuit split is certainly a point in its favor.

 

[DC-W]

So the right thing to do got him in trouble?
He didn't just give it to him; he made him go through a background check to receive it.

What difference is there between giving his uncle the equivalent cash and having it shipped to his FFL?

 

[smdub]

I fully intend to sell all of my firearms eventually. No one lives forever Does that make me a strawman?

 

[blackseven]

I found out about yet another gun rights related cert petition yesterday:
http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/~/media/Files/AbramskiPetitionforWritofCertiorari.ashx



The short version: Abramski, a police officer, bought an LE discount Glock from an FFL in his home state of VA, drove to an FFL in his uncle's state of PA and transferred it to his uncle. The feds found out about it and prosecuted him for a straw purchase. Apparently the 5th and 9th circuits say what he did was fine, whereas the 4th (where this is being appealed from), 6th, and 11th say it's illegal.

There are no Second Amendment issues raised in the petition, it's simply a statutory construction argument. It'll be interesting to see if it gets granted. The well developed circuit split is certainly a point in its favor.

I could see a case if simply gave it to his eligible-to-own-firearms uncle it would be illegal, but he didn't, he had a PA FFL transfer by 4473 to his uncle. Not even the spirit of the law to prevent straw purchases was violated...

Nothing illegal about that, what crackpot Attorney ever dreamed this shit up?

 

[w2kbr]

IOHO, this is a case of "Unintended Consequences". To wit, it is truth to say that a large number of legal buyers can, and do, in fact sell their purchase to another legal buyer at some point in the future. Many of us who bought firearms, have at a later date, put them up for sale to other legal buyers. And lots of those sales went thru either a FFL or the local LEA to insure the "legal paperwork" was submitted. Others were simply legal FTF transfers. We believe this is a situation where anti-firearm lawyers have stretched the "Straw purchase" regulation outside the envelope of intended reasoning. As we understand "Straw Purchase", it is/was intended to keep unencumbered buyers from passing on their purchase to someone not legally able to buy the item for him/herself. While we are familiar with the antics of the 4th, the 6th and 11th circuits are not so well know to us. Obviously some courts key in on their interpretation of "Initial Intention" versus proven facts of a transaction.

The sale and transfer as stated seems perfectly legal to us. And since the objecting Circuit Judges put their pants(or panties, if you will) on the same way we do (one leg at a time); they do not walk on water, ergo, we can say without doubt, they are wrong.

Right is Right, if nobody is Right, and Wrong is Wrong if everybody is Wrong.

R

 

[krucam]

Cert was granted today in Abramski...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101513zor_4g25.pdf

 

[Kharn]

Abramski vs US 12-1493 certiorari granted in this morning's orders.

 

[2AHokie]

Taking this case was the bare minimum these justices could actually do.

Everyone with half a brain knows that a transfer with a background check could not possibly be a straw purchase. It is a complete miscarriage of justice that there was ever even a prosecution in the first place.

The court is all but worthless at this point.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Some times its the little things that matter. Lets hope the Scotus doesn't get this one wrong.

 

[Hopalong]

Sometimes the simplest rulings can yield huge results. This could speak to background checks, straw purchases, FFL requirements, etc.

We should all watch this one.

 

[MDFF2008]

Indeed. you never know.

 

[krucam]

All filings of the Abramski Petition phase are at ScotusBlog for those wanting some light reading or needing to catch up.

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

 

[press1280]

There are now several gun related (but not 2A) cases granted cert. Anyone want to guess why the court is interested in those?

 

[gabe72]

That's some messed stuff right there.

 

[esqappellate]

There are now several gun related (but not 2A) cases granted cert. Anyone want to guess why the court is interested in those?

They presented direct conflicts in the circuits on statutory issues.

 

[jpweg5@aol.com]

I fully intend to sell all of my firearms eventually. No one lives forever Does that make me a strawman?

Yeah, but you'll be dead so they'll have to hang a corpse.

 

[DC-W]

The implications of this case are larger than meets the eye.
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/64189127883/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-atfs-authority-to

 

[MDFF2008]

Yeah, this case may seem minor, but it has big implications.

 

[SWO Daddy]

I could see a case if simply gave it to his eligible-to-own-firearms uncle it would be illegal, but he didn't, he had a PA FFL transfer by 4473 to his uncle. Not even the spirit of the law to prevent straw purchases was violated...

Nothing illegal about that, what crackpot Attorney ever dreamed this shit up?

If you read the CA opinion, it's obvious (to me) they were trying to get him on a robbery charge and pinned this on instead when nothing else stuck.

 

[Les Gawlik]

It bears repeating, as the article concludes, that this is the same agency that had no qualms about sending thousands of illegal guns to the drug cartels in Mexico.

Don't these people have anything better to do with their time? I am disgusted with "prosecutorial discretion" that allows people to avoid prosecution because they're buddies with the regime, or that prosecutes people for for bogus crimes because we really think they did something else but can't prove it.