It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   


Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

Did a search, didn't find any other ATS threads on this most recent ruling.

I'll keep this brief.


This ruling is a direct attack on the ability of average Americans to buy and resell. It is tantamount to criminalizing commerce. The supreme court has "jumped the shark"



What good is law enforcement ability to investigate crimes, if the laws themselves are impoverishing everyone.


Mike Grouchy




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   


In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.


Props to these guys, for specifying that this ruling does little more than make criminals of anyone who expects a resale value in their firearm purchase.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I have mixed feeling on this one. Clearly we don't want people that pass the background checks purchasing for those that can't due to age, convictions or mental history.

At the same time, if I buy a gun and decide for whatever reason I don't want it and would like to sell the thing, I should be allowed to. I guess that's the part about the lawful owner transfer. If you can insure the other person is legally allowed to posses I have no problem. Problem is people lie.




edit on 1720140620141 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
If you can insure the other person is legally allowed to posses I have no problem. Problem is people lie.


So what paper work is required and what information should be included to determine whether the buyer is legally allowed to purchase a used firearm from the seller?
edit on 17-6-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
I have mixed feeling on this one. Clearly we don't want people that pass the background checks purchasing for those that can't due to age, convictions or mental history.

At the same time, if I buy a gun and decide for whatever reason I don't want it and would like to sell the thing, I should be allowed to. I guess that's the part about the lawful owner transfer. If you can insure the other person is legally allowed to posses I have no problem. Problem is people lie.





Maybe.

Or maybe this proves that they don't care one whit about us, only about their regulations.

This ruling, ... this is exactly what I have been waiting for.

They have cooked their own goose.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Any compromise on your infringed rights is just that a compromise. Quit worrying about who shouldn't have a gun. The criminals are not sitting around thinking who should lawfully be able to buy and sell.

Now this has me thinking....criminalizing the legal registered persons would make for even more illegal business in the underground market being ran by the government via the cartels.

Jinkies!

This is pouring cement over too many nails in the coffin.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

ah nm, dead horse that has been beaten
edit on thTue, 17 Jun 2014 01:30:36 -0500America/Chicago620143680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb
There's nothing good in place now that I'm aware of, but I'd be ok with using the state drivers license/ID system to add a checkbox right under the organ donor checkbox if the person is ok to purchase guns.

These IDs get renewed every so often. There would be a small problem if someone lost their right to buy guns halfway into the license renewal, but it would still be better than the system we have now.

I'd like to be able to resell my guns but I'd also like to know I'm not selling them to someone who's unfit to own them. What makes the person unfit of course are things like being a convicted felon, mental patient, etc.

With computer background checks these days it should be possible to practically automate the checks for things like that.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb


There is no active system to check that I've ever had contact with. There is one question, I believe, that asks if the firearm is for you or something along those lines. (It's literally been a couple years since I bought a gun through a retail outlet so the specifics on that are something I'm not 100% on.)

I DO know honest gun dealers will go bananas if they sense the possibility it is a strawman purchase and that predates this President or the one before him, for that matter.

My AR-15 delayed, as my purchases pretty much always delay for an error/glitch in my background check. I was in town for a short time, trucking back then, and my wife thought she'd be helpful in saying she could just buy it and give it to me ....in front of the table and dealers. She had no clue in her innocence, that she's just suggested a major federal violation. It took several minutes for them to be comfortable in that fact though.

I got my gun and just waited the few days the delay required, since I never get denied, just glitched.

Still, if someone is buying for another and actually comes right out to say it? They probably deserve to be dinged pretty hard. It is law, after all. If it's more than a well meaning thing to someone 100% legal to own a gun as well, like a present or something, then they fully deserve all they get to do it knowingly. Just my thoughts. This law has logic behind it tho.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

In California:




Can I sell a gun directly to another person (i.e. non-dealer)?
Generally, no. This type of transaction is referred to as a “private party transfer” and must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The purchaser (and seller if the purchaser is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request but may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting the transfer. For example:


Link

Either way, staw purchases have been illegal for a long time. I'm pretty young but for the 10 plus years I've been purchasing guns it has been illegal to buy for someone else.

Again, I've got mixed feelings on the issue. I don't really have an answer. I don't like this ruling because it worries me that they are going to attempt to regulate any private sale (like the California thing above). I also find it disturbing that if I go to sell a gun it might be to some psycho looking to hurt people. I've never sold a gun private party, but if I were going to I would need to see a CPL and call it in, even a long gun. And I would document the CRAP out of the transaction. Photocopy ID and CPL and anything else.

It was clearly a straw purchase, this doesn't seem to change anything.

Quick question too in the off chance someone knows off hand, how long do you have to wait before reselling a gun that you have purchased? I thought it was 15-30 days.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
If you can insure the other person is legally allowed to posses I have no problem. Problem is people lie.



originally posted by: smithjustinb
So what paper work is required and what information should be included to determine whether the buyer is legally allowed to purchase a used firearm from the seller?


I know you were asking Domo1, but my answer would be "the kind that infringes on rights."

Regulations have already made it illegal to pass land down to our children (massive estate taxes must be paid first),
regulations have also made it illegal to drive a lot of cash over to a family member (police will take it in the name of drugs), and NOW they are directly attacking the resale value of firearms.

One of the last things in this country of planned obsolescence, and disposable appliances, that actually gains value over time. At a rate better than bankers are offering in interest.

The message from the supreme court is loud and clear. "Peasant kneel!"


Mike Grouchy



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: smithjustinb

ah nm, dead horse that has been beaten



lol, here ... let me help with that.


Mike Grouchy




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I would see no problem with your wife buying you a gun. Legally speaking, whats yours is hers and whats hers is yours. Whichever one of you buys it shouldn't really matter.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

Well let's think about this for a second. Let's pretend Wrabbit has a long history of violence, has been locked up a number of times in the loony bin because he was off his meds (OK this one has probably happened) multiple felonies etc. That's not going to show on the background check they perform on his wife.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

Well, it likely wouldn't have been a problem here, anyway. I made it very clear when I took a trip to the big Mecca of Bass Pro Shops a couple Christmases ago, that the rifle I was buying was for my pre-teen son. Not me. They never said a word to me either way, and of course, that one delayed too, but see above. I'm used to that. I'd thought there was an exemption between family, but the court case here was a man and his Uncle, so maybe not.

My situation almost became an honest to god serious problem by her words alone with these dealers because I had just been given something other than a clean approval, and she was specifically offering to circumvent that and avoid the delay. I loved her for the suggestion ... primarily because I knew as she was saying it, she was naive and sincere with meaning to be helpful. I could have just wished her silent as I realized...like watching a car about to lose control and crash..what she was saying before she said it. lol.....

Honest dealers are very very touchy on that.

Private party sales have no method or requirement for reporting in my state anyway though, so by that alone I suppose the thread situation wouldn't have a way to come up.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: XTexan

Well let's think about this for a second. Let's pretend Wrabbit has a long history of violence, has been locked up a number of times in the loony bin because he was off his meds (OK this one has probably happened) multiple felonies etc. That's not going to show on the background check they perform on his wife.


I agree that it may pose a problem. But that problem is with the background check itself. Once she purchases that gun and brings it home, it is essentially his as well.

Poor examples include: You purchase a house, at least in my state, that house is yours and your wifes. Same with a car, or dog, or loaf of bread. Unless you and your wife have a signed contract dividing up property, legally all your property is shared.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

There is no active system to check that I've ever had contact with. There is one question, I believe, that asks if the firearm is for you or something along those lines. (It's literally been a couple years since I bought a gun through a retail outlet so the specifics on that are something I'm not 100% on.)

I DO know honest gun dealers will go bananas if they sense the possibility it is a strawman purchase and that predates this President or the one before him, for that matter.

My AR-15 delayed, as my purchases pretty much always delay for an error/glitch in my background check. I was in town for a short time, trucking back then, and my wife thought she'd be helpful in saying she could just buy it and give it to me ....in front of the table and dealers. She had no clue in her innocence, that she's just suggested a major federal violation. It took several minutes for them to be comfortable in that fact though.

I got my gun and just waited the few days the delay required, since I never get denied, just glitched.

Still, if someone is buying for another and actually comes right out to say it? They probably deserve to be dinged pretty hard. It is law, after all. If it's more than a well meaning thing to someone 100% legal to own a gun as well, like a present or something, then they fully deserve all they get to do it knowingly. Just my thoughts. This law has logic behind it tho.



The defendant was originally taken to court because the authorities thought the pistol was used in a bank robbery. When that turned out NOT to be the case... years later the case is before the supreme court. And what does the court care about? Out of control law enforcement manufacturing charges and then prosecuting minutia when the original case falls apart? The clean records of the defendants? That fact that one of them is (was?) a police officer?

NO.

They care that if they rule in favor of the peasants it will make it "harder" for law enforcement.

I'm sorry but they are completely and utterly morally bankrupt on this point. American citizens have the right to enforce law, just like police do. The law is a civic duty for us all, not just for the troopers on the payroll. So just what do they mean when they say "make it harder for law enforcement?


Mike Grouchy
edit on 17-6-2014 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I agree, the shop owner had every right to be a concerned and to even deny the sale if he saw fit. I was just pointing out it seemed almost silly to me because your married. Not to pry but do you have a shared checking account with your wife? If so, and your wife did all the paperwork for the gun, then it would essentially be both of you purchasing it. In essence a "straw purchase"?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: smithjustinb


Again, I've got mixed feelings on the issue. I don't really have an answer. I don't like this ruling because it worries me that they are going to attempt to regulate any private sale (like the California thing above).


I agree. It is as odious as feature-creep. It starts out as one thing, then slowly morphs into a resource consuming monster.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: smithjustinb


Again, I've got mixed feelings on the issue. I don't really have an answer. I don't like this ruling because it worries me that they are going to attempt to regulate any private sale (like the California thing above).


I agree. It is as odious as feature-creep. It starts out as one thing, then slowly morphs into a resource consuming monster.


Mike Grouchy


Regulations are pointless now, it won't be long before people are printing up guns whenever they want. The Fed will lose all control of the firearms market. My fear is how they will respond to that.




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join