Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

originally posted by: mikegrouchy
[
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"

90% of the laws of the land regulate commerce and/or criminalize various bits of it.

Notice that the case applied solely to a DEALER - and the requirement to check backgrounds has always applied only to DEALERS - indeed private individuals selling firearms are not allowed to perform the checks that dealers have to!

From that same link, most states do not have any restrictions on private sales, but about 1/3rd do - mostly requiring private sales to be processed through a licenced dealer, who then does make the checks - which is a long established situation (ie it's been happening for a decade or more)

So your whole premise is just baloney - had the person concerned been legitimately buying the gun for themselves and then on-sold it to their uncle at some reasonable time later there would have been no issue.

However this was a case where the gun was paid for by the uncle in ADVANCE, and the purchaser lied on the purchase form in order to deceive the deadlier.

gun nuts do themselves no favours trying to make an issue out of this rubbish.

I can see the rule applying to someone that buys a gun and turns around and sells/gives it to someone else in days or a couple weeks.

But i can not see this rule applying after say 3 or 6 months.

And i don't believe a jury would ether.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

See, it's not that I disagree or agree with you. I wish it were that simple, It's not. Simply put, according to this case, this allows the Federal Government to close so-called loophole laws without any consent from the State. Basically, the Federal Government can threaten to withhold tax money if a state does not comply, just like the above listed laws. The Federal Government, in any way you spin it, is misusing it's powers granted to it by the Constitution. Why not just disband the Union and seperate us into sectors, if that is the case?

I doesn't stop real gift purchases. Buying a weapon for someone who can buy it is them self is probably not a good idea anyway. The legal system often finds ways to tie a person to a crime through some chain effect.

A former police officer. Duh.

This is a case of someone just outright breaking the law. It's the price paid for the discount that was not valid.

I don't see it hurting the average honest person out there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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),

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

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

originally posted by: mikegrouchy
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),

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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......

originally posted by: mikegrouchy
and NOW they are directly attacking the resale value of firearms.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

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.

originally posted by: mikegrouchy
The message from the supreme court is loud and clear. "Peasant kneel!"

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

Or, alternatively, guns are dangerous.

I see someone fighting to keep those chains.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Gun nuts?
Are you talking about the US government? because they sure are gun(g) ho on buying themselves tons of guns with large capacity clips for non traditional roles, like the IRS and the US department of Ag. and the FDA milk police.

All of these new laws and regulations are not aimed at stopping gun violence, or keeping things legitimate in the gun buying/selling world. They are aimed at the desired end result of no one owning any firearms without great difficulty and they are aimed at eliminating legality for owning them. Soon, it will be easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than to go legally buy or sell a gun. Haha

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: mikegrouchy
[
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"

90% of the laws of the land regulate commerce and/or criminalize various bits of it.

Notice that the case applied solely to a DEALER - and the requirement to check backgrounds has always applied only to DEALERS - indeed private individuals selling firearms are not allowed to perform the checks that dealers have to!

From that same link, most states do not have any restrictions on private sales, but about 1/3rd do - mostly requiring private sales to be processed through a licenced dealer, who then does make the checks - which is a long established situation (ie it's been happening for a decade or more)

So your whole premise is just baloney - had the person concerned been legitimately buying the gun for themselves and then on-sold it to their uncle at some reasonable time later there would have been no issue.

However this was a case where the gun was paid for by the uncle in ADVANCE, and the purchaser lied on the purchase form in order to deceive the deadlier.

gun nuts do themselves no favours trying to make an issue out of this rubbish.

Go ahead and keep shuffling that minutia around while calling dissenting views dismissive terms like "gun nuts."

4 of the Supreme Court Justices agree with me.

But since "nuts" were brought into this discussion by you... is it coincidence that all four dissenting opinions ... have nuts?
You decide.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: azdaze

It may very well be a misuse of the spirit of the Constitution and State's rights by the Feds to impose it's whims upon states by the threat of withheld funding or support elsewhere. In fact, I'd tend to agree entirely, and say funding back to the states by using money taken almost entirely from the states as well as the residents of them should be outside politics and subject to basic mathematical formulas based on logic the average Joe can understand or read within a few dozen pages with of total, combined explanation.

However, while I'm glad people are finally noticing this little stunt to be pissed off about it, check into the history of things like the 55 Mph Speed Limit and Drinking age laws. There are all kinds of things, for decades, which are only in force by the force against states with money to make it so.

It's annoying in it's own right (and wrong), but this case seems to move in a different direction?

Yeah gun nuts - it's a lot les pejorative a term than those used by said nuts on here.

I like guns - but I'm not a gun nut, and I'm happy to be both.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Yeah gun nuts - it's a lot les pejorative a term than those used by said nuts on here.

I like guns - but I'm not a gun nut, and I'm happy to be both.

Ok then,
why was this guys life destroyed.

Just look at the change in his expression over the years.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

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.

Actually that's not precisely accurate in either law or practice in a good number of states.

The incentives behind civil forfeiture make accusations like these all too plausible. Nevada has scant protections for property owners against forfeiture abuse, according to “Policing for Profit,” a report published by the Institute for Justice (IJ). Police can seize property under a legal standard lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used in criminal convictions. Owners bear the burden of proof, meaning they have to prove their innocence in court. In addition, law enforcement agencies keep 100 percent of the forfeiture proceeds. While they are required to keep records on forfeiture, Nevada law enforcement refused to provide IJ with such information.

Nor is Nevada an outlier. Twenty-five other states allow police to pocket all of the proceeds from civil forfeiture. Property owners must prove their innocence in civil forfeiture proceedings in 37 other states.

Sour ce

It's a retired 30yr Judge quoted in the next paragraph of that source article saying it's an outright institutional corruption. In this law and set of programs? I tend to agree. Police get a lot of crap for things they don't necessarily deserve often enough. In this case? The law makes it a literal profit related activity for the departments in some cities and states.

An actual example with 'Trucker fights $550,000 seizure', records not only what seems to have been an improper and highly questionable seizure and other problems but a real embarrassing reason in the end, why the guy couldn't be charged. It seems the Sheriff's Office had "returned the currency to general circulation".

(tries not to chuckle) ... Interesting euphemisms and plays on language instances of apparent corruption use these days, eh? Oh course the degree of real abuse of citizens rights is nothing like funny these days. It's systemic and moving to downright institutional in a way its never quite been, IMO.

Lawyer Criticizes Supreme Court 'Straw' Purchaser Decision

The decision also calls into question regulatory issues, she said, noting that Congress wrote the law and "we essentially have a regulation and interpretation that's created a felony."

"It is a blow to all who believe that laws are made by Congress," she said.

What makes it even more odious is that the whole incident started because the police thought the glock was used in a bank robbery. It was not. And since the authorities made a mistake, I guess they had to destroy someone's life to cover it up.

I mean really, it's not like they really care about "regulatory issues." Just look at the derivatives market for the past 14 years.


Mike Grouchy

As a forum member from the UK, who is a regular target shooter this thread is of interest, although we have legislation which would make most US gun enthusiasts choke.

I do keep up with a lot of stateside shooting-related web sites, and today this very subject was mentioned on The Firearm Blog.

www.thefirearmblog.com...

Being a simple person I can barely get my head around the legal double-talk, but as mentioned in the text, the case has opened up some questions about the definitions of suppressors, flash hiders and other species of weapon.

I think the case is pretty cut and dried, but the main thing that jumped out at me was the idea that a corporation could not buy arms, which might upset some of those big companies which are sending mercinaries abroad.

originally posted by: Greenman1
As a forum member from the UK, who is a regular target shooter this thread is of interest, although we have legislation which would make most US gun enthusiasts choke.

I do keep up with a lot of stateside shooting-related web sites, and today this very subject was mentioned on The Firearm Blog.

www.thefirearmblog.com...

Being a simple person I can barely get my head around the legal double-talk, but as mentioned in the text, the case has opened up some questions about the definitions of suppressors, flash hiders and other species of weapon.

I think the case is pretty cut and dried, but the main thing that jumped out at me was the idea that a corporation could not buy arms, which might upset some of those big companies which are sending mercinaries abroad.

Thanks a ton for the link. They are really hashing out the details in the comments section over there. Sample scenarios, how it could have gone different, what it means, and is it right.


Mike Grouchy

Now I have to wonder how "loose" the definition allows for these so called "straw purchases." It's one thing for a Father to buy a hunting shotgun for his 15 year old son who cant own a gun and then gift it to him when the state allows it to be his, a Father buying his Daughter a pistol for her 21st birthday since she works in a bad part of town or something along those lines and its another thing for a dude to go into a gun shop like what happened with Operation Fast and Furious.

How "loose" of a spectrum does this definition apply to? Interpretations and all that do indeed apply.

originally posted by: This1000xThis
How "loose" of a spectrum does this definition apply to? Interpretations and all that do indeed apply.

According to the discussion and comments on the blog linked two posts above yours, it's whatever the ATF says it is.

There are a lot of specifics and examples scenarios in the comments, but the ATF can interpret it against the individual no matter what one does. Many of the gun collectors feel themselves being driven away from stores back to gun shows. The Court is creating a country safe for agencies at the cost of it's citizens.


Mike Grouchy