Supreme Court Decision Yesterday!

[Oh Shoot]

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

 

Why are you assuming it was added and not there on original version?

 

- OS

[JR2ATN]

 A couple of years ago my Dad bought a gun for me as a Christmas gift.  It was bought online and transferred in to BassPro.  As he knows little about guns I went with him to examine it.  He made the mistake of mentioning that the gun was for me for Christmas at which point the BassPro guy became adamant that I should be the one to fill out the 4473.   I was equally adamant that, by the letter of the law, my Dad was the actual purchaser as he was using his money and then giving the gun to me.  And I didn't want to break the law by filling out the form.  This went back and forth and the guy was only mollified when I produced my HCP to show that I could pass a background check.

 

We were each equally sure of ourselves, I following the letter of the law and he the spirit of the law.  Confusion reigns.

[Sidewinder]

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.

Garufa, I'm not very good at posting hot links, but I'll try. It came to me as a part of the body of an email. It was a newsletter from the Conservative Daily site. I believe it is called Daily Sanity. I didn't try to "copy and paste" the whole thing, because there were spots in it that acted as hot links...probably wanting donations.

 

I apologize, as I did not intend to post any false information. I was only trying to "alert" others, so they would check into it for themselves. I'm sure we're all concerned about any further intrusions of the government into the Second Amendment. I'm no lawyer, and certainty no expert on what all the nuances of the firearms forms are. I'm just trying to contribute/participate in a forum that is a wonderful medium for us firearms owners.

 

I just tried to do the link, and it didn't look like any of the blue ones I've seen on here. It was in the body of an email...possibly a "cut and paste". But I'll keep trying to see if I can get it figured out and post it.

 

Sorry if I misled anyone.

[Sidewinder]

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.

I apologize, I was just reporting what I had read in the article, much like a person would report on what they saw and heard on a TV news broadcast. I am not a firearms dealer, nor a lawyer...so, I'll just say I'm sorry for any misinformation that may have been in the article.

 

I heard long ago, that it's best to remain silent and thought to be a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt! I feel I should have kept my mouth closed. ( I guess that it could be modified to "keyboard" instead of mouth, in today's vernacular.)

[Sidewinder]

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

 

- OS

Oh Shoot, as I've already stated in other posts here, I'm sorry to have stated something that was, apparently, not accurate. I was merely saying what I had read, much like a person reports what they had seen or heard in a TV news broadcast. I'll admit, I'm pretty uninformed when it comes to the laws, and intent of the laws, surrounding the FFL form discussed here. All I was doing was trying to draw attention to the fact that the Supreme Court had acted...and I didn't think they had gone to all of that trouble to try to improve our rights under the Second Amendment. I was hoping other TGO members would check into it....and apparently they did. I consider that as a good thing.

 

I'm sorry for any misinformation I have posted, as a result of inaccuracies in the article. Next time I feel froggy...maybe I should do more research before I leap.

[JohnC]

Why are you assuming it was added and not there on original version?

 

- OS

 

 

That's what I'm trying to find out is when that question first appeared, or when the background check system first used the question, or even when straw purchases first became illegal. I've not been alive as long as many of you here, so I figured you guys might know. :lol:

Edited June 18, 2014 by JohnC

[Oh Shoot]

That's what I'm trying to find out is when that question first appeared, or when the background check system first used the question, or even when straw purchases first became illegal. I've not been alive as long as many of you here, so I figured you guys might know.

 

Don't know when the question appeared on the 4473, but since it's number one, would be surprised if it wasn't on there from the beginning, but don't know. Believe it or not, I think the first one I ever filled out was only about 7 years ago, as all the guns I had owned previous to that were bought before 1986 or bought privately.

 

I assume the part of the law that's on the books is part of the Gun Control Act of 1986, since that's when the FFL system for all retail transactions was established and the 4473 appeared, although background checks weren't until the Brady Law in '94.

 

However, your point is well taken in the sense as to why one must be the "actual purchaser" in the first place, as I can't find anywhere in same code section that specifies one may not buy a gun through an FFL for someone else who the buyer has no reason to believe is prohibited from owning one and is a same state resident. After all, the buyer could gift a gun to that same person, eh? As far as I can see, this isn't going to change the interpretation on that, which is in all the ATF FAQs and even on the 4473 itself as being perfectly legal.

 

So I don't know if the real question is so much when the question appeared but more directly under what legal code does it appear? Now, I gave the SCOTUS written decision no better than a quickie run through, but seems the majority opinion never hit on that at all, but just based everything on the "record keeping" and  part of the code and how the accused falsified it by lying,  not about what law is actually broken by doing what he did.

 

However, good ole Scalia, writing the dissent, by Gawd did, summing up in agreement with me:

 

"The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it—especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused. I respectfully dissent."

 

The other irony about the whole case was (since I can find no evidence he used an FFL in PA to do it)  the guy was clearly guilty of privately transferring a firearm to a resident of a different state, which is a clear cut violation of the statute, but wasn't charged for the most obvious act. (see DaveTNs post and link in next post, seems this statement may not be true after all).

 

Anyway,  seems to me the whole federal court process missed the mark. Glad to see that Scalia agrees with me, too, smart guy there.  :)

 

- OS

Edited June 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

I’m sure this case was handpicked by the Obama administration to test this law. Instead of using a law abiding family member buying for another family member, they used a suspected bank robber that they claim had made threats to kill cops.
http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/269289

[Oh Shoot]

I’m sure this case was handpicked by the Obama administration to test this law. Instead of using a law abiding family member buying for another family member, they used a suspected bank robber that they claim had made threats to kill cops.
http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/269289

 

Oh wow, thanks for that...it says the actual transfer of the Glock to his uncle was done at an FFL in PA. ("according to state law there", ha ha!)

 

So if that's true, he didn't break the obvious law I mentioned in post above (which I edited), and of course why he wasn't charged with it.

 

And good point all around on perhaps why he was so actively prosecuted in the first place.

 

- OS

Edited June 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have been buying firearms for a very long time and I do not remember a time when question one, asking if I am the actual buyer, was not on there.

[Chucktshoes]

I'm trying to track down what year it was that it was added, but question 11a was not always on the form. It was a later addition by the ATF. 

[A.J. Holst]

the only real power guv'mint is given is the prosecution of law breakers.

 

when not enough folks are breaking the law, thus reducing the power of guv'mint, they simply pass more laws to make it nigh impossible for anyone to figure out if they are law abiding or law breakers...

[Dolomite_supafly]

11a was on there at least back to 1990 as there is a 1990 publication addressing it.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm trying to track down what year it was that it was added, but question 11a was not always on the form. It was a later addition by the ATF. 

 

Again, how do you know that?

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Here's the thing, in partial reiteration of my treatise in post 32, but a little more succinct:

 

And I'm just a bit embarrassed about it too, because I've certainly invested more than a modicum of time into 18 USC - 921-923, which is the core and majority of federal firearm law, but somehow until this issue made it all the way to the Supremes, I just never really noticed that there's simply no real wording therein that allows Question 11.a  to even exist as a grounds for denial.

 

Basically, the government has made it a crime to lie on a question that should not have to be answered at all to receive a firearm. Or, if the purpose could be to collect data, like the ethnic and racial questions supposedly do, okay, but either "yes" or "no" should both be acceptable.

 

Forget the Second Amendment, I'm just talking about the frigging law.

 

That's the gist of both my and Justice Scalia's view -- which sadly both carried exactly the same weight in the matter. IMHO, it rivals the Obamacare decision, not of course in scope, but certainly in departure from sane jurisprudence based on either Constitution or existing law.

 

And the really bad news is that this is the most conservative court we're likely to see in the next twenty years or more.

 

- OS

Edited June 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Chucktshoes]

Again, how do you know that?

 

- OS

I recall reading about the addition at one point in an article that had the basic gist of your last post in that it was a question that the law doesn't address and that the ATF was basically making law by asking it. I very well may be mistaken, but I don't think so and am trying to track it down. I can't seem to find any scanned versions of the 4473 that predate the internet era. I believe the time frame for the addition of 11a was sometime during the Reagan administration.

[Sidewinder]

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

Nah, nothing is against the law these days!

[No_0ne]

SCOTUS really couldn't rule on this case any other way, as the instructions for Form 4473 include a specific example that exactly duplicates the facts of this issue.  You can argue that the restriction shouldn't be part of the Federal Code, but that's an argument for Congress, not the Court.  Form 4473 dates all the way back to the GCA of 1968, although it's gone through many iterations and revisions since then.  Some states had required paperwork for gun purchases prior to 1968, but the GCA made it a federal requirement.

[Oh Shoot]

SCOTUS really couldn't rule on this case any other way, as the instructions for Form 4473 include a specific example that exactly duplicates the facts of this issue.  You can argue that the restriction shouldn't be part of the Federal Code, but that's an argument for Congress, not the Court.././

 

You miss the point. The example on the 4473, and the question itself is not in the federal code. It's a made up rule, not based on written law.

 

That was Scalia's point. And mine.

 

- OS