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: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

The very law against "strawbuying" is a strawman itself.

















originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

Completely arbitrary, based on semantics and the punchline is that even it were enforced absolutely 100% of the time it would still do nothing whatsoever to prevent criminal use of a firearm.

So WTF is the point!?!?!






posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

The best explanation can be found just by reading form 4473, particularly the instructions on page 4 regarding 'actual transferee/buyer'. Gifts are legal, and although I've just skimmed the decision so far, I believe even the USSC mentioned that as true.

The problem in this case was this section found on the back of the 4473:


Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a f irearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the f irearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS- FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a.


That's basically what happened here, he lied and marked 'yes', and there's even a check from the uncle with 'Glock 19 handgun' in the memo field to prove that there was an exchange of money. They tried to argue that since the uncle could have legally purchased it, then it shouldn't be considered a straw purchase. But form 4473 is rather clear that it is. They really didn't have a leg to stand on, IMO.

edit on 17-6-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Johnny, I can't buy you that .22 for Christmas. We're not worried about you shooting your eye out - the government will lock up dad in prison.

Seems any intent to buy a gift is a crime. So a person would have to buy before the idea of a gift is in their head then give it away later. There's a tradition down the tubes.

edit:

OK,so a gift is still in play. That also is a loop hole if they cannot trace a payment. Brilliant law making.
edit on 6/17/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
This is the actual question on the form:


Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?
Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

(See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception:If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are
not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.
link

It's funny because there is no case in which the person at the desk filling out the form and handing over the cash is not the actual buyer.

Even if the person at the desk intended to hand it off to somebody else that person at the desk is still the person buying it.

And the clause about the picking up a repaired gun for somebody else? That just negates the whole point of the question then, doesnt it?

Say I buy a gun with explicit intent to hand it off to gangbanger Joe. But that would be illegal. So I buy it. Immediately hand it in to have some night sights put on it and then when it's ready gangbanger Joe can just waltz in and pick it up.

It's amazing to me that people can be locked up and have their lives ruined based on such a horrible and broken law that reads like it was written by retarded cartoon squirrels.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

But he still has to answer the form and be checked, right? They don't just hand it over like dry cleaning, do they?

The form states to skip the question and continue.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

It IS stupid the way it is written, no doubt about it. Still, what constitutes an 'actual buyer' is spelled out pretty clearly in the instructions on the form itself, and it even gives an example scenario of an illegal straw purchase that's essentially identical to what happened here.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

The example of Mr Smith giving Mr Jones money to buy him a gun is very specific.

In the case that brought this question to the SCOTUS the real thing that the defendant is guilty of is being too stupid to avoid walking through the very tiny legislative eye of a needle and take advantage of the galaxy sized loopholes all around him. Simply not taking a check for the exact amount with a memo of the gun bought would have kept him out of trouble.

But then I guess that's sort of the point for the government and the grabbers at large. Where we see a stupidly written law that does nothing to prevent criminal acts and instead inconveniences and restricts otherwise law-abiding people the government and the grabbers see those "loopholes" that must be closed.

There are even examples in this thread by people supposedly on the side of liberty making excuses like "I don't want crazies to get a gun" as if this law, the 4473 or any background check could ever prevent that.

It's just more infringements on all of us.
edit on 17-6-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

But he still has to answer the form and be checked, right? They don't just hand it over like dry cleaning, do they?

The form states to skip the question and continue.




You're right. I didnt catch that. As I understand the situation if you, the buyer, are picking up a repaired gun you dont need another NICS check but anyone else picking it up for you would get a NICS check.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: mikegrouchy

I 100% agree with the Court's ruling.

What good is a law if there is no penalty for bypassing it???

Background checks mean nothing if it is legal to have someone else go buy a gun for you.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

But he still has to answer the form and be checked, right? They don't just hand it over like dry cleaning, do they?

The form states to skip the question and continue.




You're right. I didnt catch that. As I understand the situation if you, the buyer, are picking up a repaired gun you dont need another NICS check but anyone else picking it up for you would get a NICS check.


You are correct unless your gunsmith is out of state, this I am going through now. The gun has to be sent FFL holder to FFL holder then BG check has to be done again. The comedy about this is, the serial # is my last name. The transfer and additional BG check is about another $100.00. Such a deal...



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Don't get me wrong. Given that the uncle could pass the background check, I think this is essentially a 'victimless' crime and that he probably shouldn't have been prosecuted. That said, I also believe that he has no one to blame for the fact that he was prosecuted but himself.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: mikegrouchy

With states beginning to nullify any and all federal regulations, this will only speed up that process.

Sure, there are apparent valid arguments to be made for this "ruling". That's also true of just about every regulation out there. Second Amendment or otherwise.

No one can argue that there aren't downsides to the Second Amendment and a price to be paid for that "right".

It really comes down to nibbling at the edges of that right. We've seen so much "nibbling" to our rights that they, in effect, disappear.

"Freedom" or "safety". Neither is an absolute.

I will decide who I should and shouldn't sell to, thank you very much...



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Another 5/4 decision. All 5/4 decisions are bad for the American people, at least it seems that way. Someone on ATS wrote that they do this to make it seem like the loosing side almost won. The reality is it would not matter if it were 9/0. The healthcare bill was 5/4.

While the bill sounds like it means well, I do think long term it will be used against all private gun sales and possible inheritance of firearms.

It is a victory for gun control and I fear there is an ongoing agenda to slowly bypass the 2nd Amendment and slowly more seeming benign gun control laws will be passed. It will not happen over night with out a civil war, but slowly erode gun rights over 50 years and very few would even notice. There also appears to be a propaganda campaign aimed at the public school systems to condition the youth to be pro-gun control.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Well, they may have arrested him...if there hadn't been a prolonged and very two sided firefight with casualties and losses on both sides in the attempt to do so.

The ATF reacted to a warrant like the Allies storming Normandy beach. No doubt..but that situation required and got two sides actively doing everything to insure it ended in the tragedy it did, IMO. Either side....either of them...could have taken measures to de-escalate and turn it off. Neither did in any meaningful way as history and volumes of post-incident reports so sadly record. and even the surviving Davidians testified to in court.

A tragedy on all sides.....but how does that related to the existing law for one person buying a firearm in a commercial sale for another? I'm kinda missing that connection?


edit on 6/17/2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

completely worthless action, for the sake of action, so they can say "we're taking action"

it's a huge knee-jerk(off)...



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Well, they may have arrested him...if there hadn't been a prolonged and very two sided firefight with casualties and losses on both sides in the attempt to do so.

The ATF reacted to a warrant like the Allies storming Normandy beach. No doubt..but that situation required and got two sides actively doing everything to insure it ended in the tragedy it did, IMO. Either side....either of them...could have taken measures to de-escalate and turn it off. Neither did in any meaningful way as history and volumes of post-incident reports so sadly record. and even the surviving Davidians testified to in court.

A tragedy on all sides.....but how does that related to the existing law for one person buying a firearm in a commercial sale for another? I'm kinda missing that connection?



Because Koresh never bought those firearms. They were purchased by members of his church, and brought there.

If the ATF had a case, if Koresh was really the buyer, why didn't they arrest him doing that? Instead of sending armored marshals to serve him a warrant.

Look, I know many readers of this don't _want_ to see the connection, but after Waco was over and all the forces went home I spent hours in discussion with one the siege participants at his parents home in Alabama discussing it with him. He was conflicted and broken. All those children had died. He was looking for answers. Did they, did he, do the right thing. His parents didn't have any satisfactory answers.

I realized this man was on the verge of leaving the force for ever. Just dropping out of society completely. I explained to him that it was not his fault, he was just following the orders he had been given. He looked at me with great pain, like I had just called him a Nazi. Then I said "If Koresh was charged with buying illegal assault weapons, why wasn't he arrested doing just that. Why were you guys sent in to arrest him keeping-and-bearing-arms? Doesn't that sound painful. Isn't keeping-and-bearing-arms the second amendment? And the only reason it ended badly is the bean counters realized that Koresh had enough food to wait out the siege, while the government was spending millions a day maintaining it. The cost of keeping you guys there and NOT shooting was greater than the cost of ending it. This was not your decision. You kept the men around you alive, and YOU didn't shoot any children. We need people like you on the force. People with a conscience. It is the leadership that should be losing sleep over this.

His physical reaction was remarkable. Suddenly he looked taller, and self possessed again. In my opinion everyone he had been talking to, up till then, was dancing around the issue. Avoiding it, didn't want to see it, wanted it to go-away. Confronting him with it directly is what he wanted, what he required, what he needed.


The connection ... is that once again, someone who has told the truth is being persecuted because the leadership has an agenda. If they can't make it illegal to have a firearm, then they will make it illegal to do anything else with them than lock it in a safe.



Mike Grouchy



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   

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



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
So think about this. . . . how long will it be, now that this issue has been ruled upon, will it be until the feds mandate all states adopt it? Kind of like the speed limit laws, or the drinking age laws, or the DUI laws, or the seatbelt laws? I don't like it one bit.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: azdaze

Is it about states adopting it? The U.S. Supreme Court's whole role is in defining and interpreting cases that involve Constitutional conflicts of some kind. Their rulings make the law of the land, unless they otherwise narrow it to specifics and issues. (which they often do on things)

Did they do that here? That's what I'm still trying to find out from people more knowledgeable about law than I. If they've now basically encouraged the ATF to enforce federal straw man purchasing laws to the letter of the 'black letter law'? Awwww.. Crap...

That technically covers a Christmas present or something as simple as that, doesn't it? The Court's logic is outright quoted as partially being about making the function of law enforcement's tracking effective as intended. Well, Christmas would thwart that as sure as this sale between family members as it happened.

Intended or not, buying a gun for an uncle that is also fully qualified and legal, then getting nailed on it? Well, its like putting someone in prison for a slam firing AR-15 after calling it an automatic weapon.

err.. wait.. they've done that too. (sigh)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

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),


so it's not actually illegal at all....like everything else it is legal if you follow the laws applicable....not a good start....

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),


Rubbish - they MIGHT do so if they suspect that is the case - but if they do then they have to continue to make the case or give it back.

So 2 wrong out of 2......


and NOW they are directly attacking the resale value of firearms.


rofl.......what a load of rubbish, and, ironically, a long bow to draw!

Sure regulation will affect commerce - it always does, but to take this as an attempt t directly affect resale value rather than a legitimate attempt to control weapon sale is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.


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


Or, alternatively, guns are dangerous.


edit on 17-6-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tag



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join