Supreme Court Decision Yesterday!

[Sidewinder]

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday, to no longer allow guns to be gifted from one individual to another! Dad can't buy Johnny that first .22 for Christmas! Also, they said one person cannot sell a gun to another person. Buy a gun and decide after shooting it that you don't like it, they say you cannot sell it to another person. Sorry, I do not know who the majority vote was...Roberts? Check it out. I'm trying to figure out how to hot-link the article. It was posted on "Daily Sanity".

[Smith]

Not exactly. They upheld the current straw purchase law, but it is unclear the implications that the interpretation of that ruling holds. Either way it is confusing and going to be messy before it is said and done.

[leroy]

I think they said "...ya cant lie on a federal form..."... Read here for what you can do:   https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

 

leroy

[ArmyBrat61]

I think they said "...ya cant lie on a federal form..."... Read here for what you can do:   https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

 

leroy

Especially when the intended receipient live across state lines........

[Garufa]

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday, to no longer allow guns to be gifted from one individual to another! Dad can't buy Johnny that first .22 for Christmas! Also, they said one person cannot sell a gun to another person. Buy a gun and decide after shooting it that you don't like it, they say you cannot sell it to another person.

 

They didn't say any of that at all.

[Oh Shoot]

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday, to no longer allow guns to be gifted from one individual to another! Dad can't buy Johnny that first .22 for Christmas! Also, they said one person cannot sell a gun to another person. Buy a gun and decide after shooting it that you don't like it, they say you cannot sell it to another person. Sorry, I do not know who the majority vote was...Roberts? Check it out. I'm trying to figure out how to hot-link the article. It was posted on "Daily Sanity".

 

I'm afraid that none of your interpretation is correct. Federally, it is:

 

- still perfectly legal to buy a firearm as a gift for anyone not prohibited from ownership (is example on 4473 itself)

- still perfectly legal to sell to non-prohibited same state resident in private transaction

 

- OS

Edited June 17, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Falcon1]

Sorry, I do not know who the majority vote was...Roberts?

 

It was Kennedy....

[RED333]

Especially when the intended receipient live across state lines........

This is what it was all about, crossing state lines is a big NO, NO.

[2.ooohhh]

The actual syllabus is below. I'm not a lawyer but it looks to me as if Oh Shoot is correct.(as usual)

 

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

[Ugly]

I am still baffled as to why one can't buy a pistol in another state without having to get it shipped. It is ignorant of modern times.

[Hozzie]

Proof that once again we are our own worst enemy.......

[robbiev]

This is what it was all about, crossing state lines is a big NO, NO.

I think it was also about buying a gun for another person when it isn't a genuine gift. Giving money to someone so they can go buy a gun for you isn't a gift, even if the person can legally own the gun.

[Oh Shoot]

I think it was also about buying a gun for another person when it isn't a genuine gift. Giving money to someone so they can go buy a gun for you isn't a gift, even if the person can legally own the gun.

 

Yep, and again, that is the exact distinction made in directions on the 4473, the simple difference that separates gift from straw purchase.

 

But of course, privately selling or even giving a firearm to a resident of a different state is illegal period.

 

- OS

Edited June 17, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[JohnC]

This is just my opinion...

 

I think the straw purchase law should be rewritten to state specifically that a straw purchase is only buying a gun for a prohibited person ,or buying with intent to resale a gun to a prohibited person.

Because if the person was prohibited from buying guns, then I could see it as a straw purchase.

 

But if both parties are legal to purchase and own a firearm, it shouldn't matter at all if one buys it for the other.

 

Again, this is just my opinion.

[Sidewinder]

They didn't say any of that at all.

Here's what the article I read said:

The Second Amendment is as American as apple pie. Throughout our history, the gun has been essential in making America what it is today. From winning our independence to winning the West, from providing food for the family to providing personal protection in a dangerous world... Guns are part of the fabric of this country.
Another American staple is the gifting of firearms. Every year, family members purchase firearms for their relatives. Friends give guns to one another. Hell, even U.S. Presidents have received guns as gifts from foreign dignitaries. Whether it is a father giving a child their first gun or the other way around, this happens almost every day.
Well, now the Supreme Court has made every single one of these gift-givers instant felons! A divided Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that it is illegal for an individual to buy a gun with the express purpose of giving or selling it to someone else, even if both people are allowed to own guns!
In the case, Abramski v. United States, petitioner Bruce Abramski was charged after buying a gun and then selling it to a family member. Since Abramski was law enforcement, he received a discount on purchasing any Glock handgun. He bought the gun so his uncle wouldn't have to pay full price. Dishonest, yes, but there shouldn't be anything illegal about that.
Normally, you have to have to be licensed to deal in firearms, but the law allows citizens to sell their personally owned guns every now and then. Abramski claims that he owned a pistol and then decided to sell it to his uncle.

[Sidewinder]

I'm afraid that none of your interpretation is correct. Federally, it is:

 

- still perfectly legal to buy a firearm as a gift for anyone not prohibited from ownership (is example on 4473 itself)

- still perfectly legal to sell to non-prohibited same state resident in private transaction

 

- OS

Here's a copy and paste from the beginning of the article I read.

 

The result of this ruling is absolutely staggering. If fully enforced, parents may no longer be able to buy and gift firearms to their children. No more teaching children how to responsibly use firearms... No more giving grandpa a rifle in honor of his military service... The only way to get a gun in Obama's America is to buy it yourself and let the government keep a record of it!
This is why Obama reignited his push for universal background checks last week. When it is illegal to give guns as gifts to friends and neighbors, and every firearm transfer must have a background check performed, that gives the government the complete ability to track gun ownership!
A universal background check is nothing but a synonym for gun registration. The only way to ensure that a firearm transfer was done correctly, if Obama is able to change the laws how he wants, would be to maintain a registry of all gun purchases/sales. Otherwise, everyone could just claim that they performed a background check, even if they didn't. That is why gun owners are so staunchly against mandatory background checks, because they require a gun registry to be enforceable. The stupidity of this ruling means that if you buy a gun and figure out you don't like it after a day, you can sell it to friends or family members without a problem. But if you buy a gun just to give to your family/friends, then you're all of a sudden a felon.
Make no mistake... Monday's Supreme Court ruling is about more than just prohibiting the gifting of firearms. It eliminates one of the few ways for people to legally buy a gun without letting Uncle Sam know about it!
There are plenty of lawful reasons to buy a gun for someone else and it is NONE of the government's business when this lawful exchange happens! Yet, the Supreme Court's ruling in Abramski now eliminates the ability to legally buy a firearm for someone else!
This isn't about stopping crimes. This is about ensuring that the government can track everyone who purchases a firearm!
Congress must amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (deceptive name, huh?) to protect the rights of family members and friends to buy guns for one another. Unless we force Congress to act NOW, then this Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land!
We cannot allow the Liberal Supreme Court Justices to ban the gifting of firearms!

[midtennchip]

I think the opinion is fairly clear in stating that the "individual who sends a straw to the gun store to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer . . . And that distinguishes such a person from someone who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party." See Page 19.

So, at least as this decision is concerned, I highly doubt it has any effect on any purchase other than a situation where the person completing the 4473 was sent to complete the purchase for someone else.

[midtennchip]

Here's what the article I read said:
The Second Amendment is as American as apple pie. Throughout our history, the gun has been essential in making America what it is today. From winning our independence to winning the West, from providing food for the family to providing personal protection in a dangerous world... Guns are part of the fabric of this country.
Another American staple is the gifting of firearms. Every year, family members purchase firearms for their relatives. Friends give guns to one another. Hell, even U.S. Presidents have received guns as gifts from foreign dignitaries. Whether it is a father giving a child their first gun or the other way around, this happens almost every day.
Well, now the Supreme Court has made every single one of these gift-givers instant felons! A divided Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that it is illegal for an individual to buy a gun with the express purpose of giving or selling it to someone else, even if both people are allowed to own guns!
In the case, Abramski v. United States, petitioner Bruce Abramski was charged after buying a gun and then selling it to a family member. Since Abramski was law enforcement, he received a discount on purchasing any Glock handgun. He bought the gun so his uncle wouldn't have to pay full price. Dishonest, yes, but there shouldn't be anything illegal about that.
Normally, you have to have to be licensed to deal in firearms, but the law allows citizens to sell their personally owned guns every now and then. Abramski claims that he owned a pistol and then decided to sell it to his uncle.

That's why you need to read the opinion for yourself. That article is simply not accurate on either the arguments made by the defendant or the opinion of the court.

[Garufa]

Sidewinder, please post a link to what you read.

 

My understanding is Uncle wrote nephew a check with the notation "Glock 19 handgun" on it BEFORE nephew, who was not law enforcement BTW (his creds had already expired) yet was stil able to buy blue label, went and bought the firearm.

 

How is that not a straw purchase?

 

These two morons probably spent untold thousands of dollars to save a hundred bucks.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Garufa

[Oh Shoot]

Here's what the article I read said:

...

 

That's why you need to read the opinion for yourself. That article is simply not accurate on either the arguments made by the defendant or the opinion of the court.

 

 

Yup, guy in article makes sweeping statements that simply aren't in the decision, which is quite a narrow one really.

 

- OS

[TMF]

An internet article had misinformation? Isn't that against the law. I read an article on the internet about that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ugly]

What are the odds a lib judge will rule on the extreme?

What do you mean I can't sell a pistol in another state? Not even to family?

Seems bizarre to me.

[Oh Shoot]

What do you mean I can't sell a pistol in another state? Not even to family?

 

Not just a pistol, and not just sell -- you can't even legally give any firearm to your son if he's a resident of a different state except via FFL transfer.

 

All interstate transfers must go through an FFL, and further, handguns may only be transferred in the state of the recipient.

 

- OS

Edited June 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Ugly]

Didn't know that, never did it before. Seems like an infringement though.

He live in one of those states that require an FFL anyway so were gonna go that route.
Thought you meant I couldn't sell it period.

Thanks for the clarification OS.

[JohnC]

I searched and can't find it, but when was the straw purchase question added to the 4473 or gun purchase process?

 

What was the actual date and intended purpose?

 

Was it to prevent straw purchases of guns to give or sale to prohibited persons only, or was it to prevent all purchases of guns for anyone other than the person filling out the background (4473)?