Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

Register to hide this ad
What bothers me is why are we not enforcing other gun laws (such as a felon attempting to buy) with equal vigor?

I am not justifying this guys action, because he was in the wrong to agree to buy a gun for another and then lie on the forms. .
 
I know it's early on but does this mean we can't now buy a gun as a present for another member of my family? I'm thinking of our wife or children here.
Jim
 
As I remember the facts in this case the defendant was a LEO and purchased the Glock under their LEO discount program. The transfer also crossed state lines without a licensee involved. Given all the circumstances involved I don't really have a problem with this being ruled as a straw purchase. The guy involved was doing more than just giving a firearm to his uncle, he was defrauding Glock to obtain the LEO discount price and transferring a firearm interstate in violation of GCA-68. I have no doubt that he knew exactly what he was doing.
 
italiansport said:
I know it's early on but does this mean we can't now buy a gun as a present for another member of my family? I'm thinking of our wife or children here.
Jim
Click to expand...

No the rules remain as they always have, you can buy a gun for a gift as you are the purchaser but you can't take money from someone else and buy them a gun no matter if they're a legal possessor or not. I was pretty sure that was going to be the ruling.
 
Is this kinda like flipping guns with no ffl? You betcha it is! First question on 4473. Scous was almost divided along gender basis. Kennedy was only male in favor of ruling.
 
Last edited:
The gun was transferred through FFL. The only thing he did illegal was use uncles money to buy gun. If he had given it as a gift (no money passed between him and uncle), it would have been 100% legal. May have been misuse of glock discount, but that isn't illegal.
 
If anyone would like the opinion, it's here (good summary of the facts on page 7):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

Between Kagan's majority (which has some interesting things to say about secondary sales and gifting) and Scalia's dissent, it's eminently readable.

(Sheesh - I just tried to put up a link to the opinion, but the forum's software is displaying the pdf right in this post!)
 
Last edited:
My question is how would it will impact anyone buying a pistol/revolver on any given day and completing the proper paperwork. Fast forward a few months and the original buyer decides he doesn't like the revolver/pistol and sells it to someone else.
Seems to me there is enough grey area to make this a very contested transaction. Comments?
 
That's why I suggested you read Kagan's opinion (linked in my post)...might as well see the source material instead of just some internet dude's interpretation.

If not, I can recommend a good appellate criminal defense lawyer to explain it and probably get you a good rate-let me know. :)

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
The LEO "discount" on firearms is not really a discount. Sales to LEO's are exempt from the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition (levied on the manufacturer or importer). This tax has been in existence since 1919, but most gun owners aren't aware of it. It's 10% for handguns and 11% for long guns and ammunition. It seems from the facts that the main purpose of this transaction was avoidance of this tax. Abramski had to have known that using his LEO exemption for this tax could potentially get him in trouble. This was not a question of a discount from Glock or the dealer. When non-LEO's buy guns or ammunition the excise tax is passed on to them as part of the price - the manufacturer has already paid the tax.
 
Slightly off topic but why the rule that guns cannot be sold across state lines without FFL? Sounds like the Feds just want their cut and state borders is nothing more than a made up reason to interfere. Are we not ALL Americans regardless of our state of residence?
 
After considering the ruling, is it not just a confirmation of the a rule that is already in place? A straw purchase is against the law. In this case the accused purchased this pistol for another individual. He challenged the rule and he lost. Just hope they keep it within that realm.
 
What bothers me is the Majority's main argument is that no one would know who the gun was purchased for for the purpose of tracking. Yet the purchaser and the end owner did not take any steps to hide the purchase. Receipts were kept, a check with a notation that it was for the purchase of a firearm and the gun was transferred through an FFL. All of these steps allow for the tracking of the firearm. So I have a problem with the decision as I see no intent to commit a crime and is not intent required. Lawyers please expand.
 
ladyT said:
What bothers me is the Majority's main argument is that no one would know who the gun was purchased for for the purpose of tracking. Yet the purchaser and the end owner did not take any steps to hide the purchase. Receipts were kept, a check with a notation that it was for the purchase of a firearm and the gun was transferred through an FFL. All of these steps allow for the tracking of the firearm. So I have a problem with the decision as I see no intent to commit a crime and is not intent required. Lawyers please expand.
Click to expand...

Right, if he bought it for his relative because his relative could not pass a background check and then tried to hide or cover up the transaction that is different.
 
opaul said:
My question is how would it will impact anyone buying a pistol/revolver on any given day and completing the proper paperwork. Fast forward a few months and the original buyer decides he doesn't like the revolver/pistol and sells it to someone else.
Seems to me there is enough grey area to make this a very contested transaction. Comments?
Click to expand...

My guess (I am not a lawyer) is that if you make the deal to buy the gun for someone else before you make the actual purchase it is a straw purchase.

If sometime later you sell the gun I would think that's ok, particularly if you go through all the legal hoops required in your state.

I agree there is enough grey to cover a large elephant.
 
Muss Muggins said:
Don't buy a gun for somebody else who writes you a check for it and then get accused of a bank robbery. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Or deal in cash - and don't tell anyone.

But there is part of the issue I have with this - in the name of stopping criminals you are pushing law abiding citizens to either act in ways that have the appearance of being criminal or technical are criminal by answering the questions on the form in a less than factual manner.

If it is 100% legal for me to buy a gun and give it as a gift to my brother, who is not legally prohibited from owning it, but it is illegal for me to sell the same gun to the same brother but only if he pays me for it AFTER I buy it rather than BEFORE I buy it?

If the intent of the law is to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining a firearm whether for a fee or as a gift then why should any case where none of the parties involved are prohibited be a problem no matter how indistinguishable those two transactions are from each other to an outside observer?

I think only in cases where the person who ended up with the gun is prohibited should have any gray area at all - and that gray area has nothing to do with whose money was used and whether it was put up before or after the sale - but only around whether or not the person who actually made the purchase from the FFL knew or did not know or had a reason to suspect that the other person was prohibited or not.

I am not saying the ends justify the means but if the end result of this case is that only a minor technicality of procedure was violated then it should either be dismissed or a very minor charge.
 
b_san said:
No the rules remain as they always have, you can buy a gun for a gift as you are the purchaser but you can't take money from someone else and buy them a gun no matter if they're a legal possessor or not. I was pretty sure that was going to be the ruling.
Click to expand...

The way to do this legally is this. Purchase the gun for yourself, legally. Then when it's given to a second party, (Gift, heirloom) take it to a FFL and have it transferred to that party. Cost, maybe an extra &15 but its all legal. If we are law abiding citizens, this is what we do. If we are not, what do we care about any laws?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TXBryan
Mexico sues U.S. gunmakers
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Oldsalt66
Oldsalt66
bushmaster1313
Siegel v. Platkin — Why we support the NRA (and never bash it in public)
Replies
3
Views
2K
bushmaster1313
bushmaster1313
D
Judge Voids California Background Check w/ Ammo Purchases
Replies
8
Views
1K
Walter Rego
W
S
SCOTUS vacates Massachusetts gun law
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
M29since14
M
RM Vivas
The value of gun books
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
rockquarry
R

Latest posts

Back
Top