Supreme Court weighs gun rights challenge

[VWpilot]

FYI...........stay vigilant & stay safe ~ Rob.

Supreme Court weighs gun rights challenge


Published January 22, 2014
FoxNews.com


The Supreme Court took up a new gun rights case on Wednesday, weighing whether it should be a crime for someone to buy a gun for somebody else, if both people are legally allowed to own one.

Justices on Wednesday heard from Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former police officer who got in trouble with the law after he bought a Glock 19 handgun in Virginia -- and transferred it to his uncle in Pennsylvania.

Abramski bought the gun because he could get a discount, and checked a box on the relevant form saying the gun was for him. But he sold it to his uncle.

Abramski was later indicted under federal law for making a false statement material to the lawfulness of a firearm sale -- and for making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a license firearm dealer.

But Abramski's lawyers told the high court that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.

His team argued that Congress never intended for a lawful buyer who transfers a gun to another lawful owner to be prosecuted under this law -- and that the intent was all about making sure straw buyers don't purchase guns for people not allowed to have them, like certain convicted criminals.

But the government argued that he violated the plain language of the law, when he said on the form that the gun was for him. They argued he never gave the seller any idea that he planned to essentially resell the gun to someone else the dealer would have no opportunity to vet.

Much of Wednesday's arguments centered on the question on the form -- prepared by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- and whether the agency's decision to include the question gives it the force of law, enough to make it a crime to answer untruthfully.

A decision in the case is expected by June.

Fox News' Shannon Bream and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/supreme-court-weighs-gun-rights-challenge/?intcmp=latestnews

[Just Bill]

This is the biggest problem with so many of these feel good gun laws.  They do little to prevent  gun crimes, but create criminals from otherwise legal citizens.

[Hawkeye]

It is my understanding that as this particular law was written in the 70's, what Mr Abramski did was legal.  The defense is arguing that sometime in the 90's under Clinton, the AFT decided to reinterpret the law, not change it mind you, just decided that the wording now meant something else.

[Moosie]

I'm on the fence with this one. The article doesn't indicate what Abramski's true intent was when he made the purchase. If Abramski purchased the gun with the full intent of transferring it to his Uncle, then he lied when he checked the box that said it was for him. If however, he purchased it, got home and experienced buyers remorse, his Uncle offered to take it off his hands, then it's a different ball of wax.  As long as he transferred it legally to his Uncle - based on his state and his Uncles' state transfer laws - then things should have been legally ok. It all boils down to Abramski's intent.

Again, remember that we only get one side of the story...  and the ATF sure as heck isn't going to man up to the podium and say oh, well this is what we did and why. 

Moosie

[seniorgeek]

I'm on the fence with this one. The article doesn't indicate what Abramski's true intent was when he made the purchase. If Abramski purchased the gun with the full intent of transferring it to his Uncle, then he lied when he checked the box that said it was for him. If however, he purchased it, got home and experienced buyers remorse, his Uncle offered to take it off his hands, then it's a different ball of wax.  As long as he transferred it legally to his Uncle - based on his state and his Uncles' state transfer laws - then things should have been legally ok. It all boils down to Abramski's intent.

Again, remember that we only get one side of the story...  and the ATF sure as heck isn't going to man up to the podium and say oh, well this is what we did and why. 

Moosie

No one of us know what Abramski's true intent was, so this is all conjecture. Let's visit the facts, well actually we can't as we don't have all the facts.
The supreme court will decide this case and I am afraid that the outcome maybe detrimental to the general public.

[Moosie]

I'm on the fence with this one. The article doesn't indicate what Abramski's true intent was when he made the purchase. If Abramski purchased the gun with the full intent of transferring it to his Uncle, then he lied when he checked the box that said it was for him. If however, he purchased it, got home and experienced buyers remorse, his Uncle offered to take it off his hands, then it's a different ball of wax.  As long as he transferred it legally to his Uncle - based on his state and his Uncles' state transfer laws - then things should have been legally ok. It all boils down to Abramski's intent.

Again, remember that we only get one side of the story...  and the ATF sure as heck isn't going to man up to the podium and say oh, well this is what we did and why. 

Moosie

No one of us know what Abramski's true intent was, so this is all conjecture. Let's visit the facts, well actually we can't as we don't have all the facts.
The supreme court will decide this case and I am afraid that the outcome maybe detrimental to the general public.

I agree, that the SC will decide this case and the outcome will most likely NOT be in support of 2A.  My point was that we dont have all the facts. There used to be two sides to a story... anytime the govt gets involved while a particular Kenyan muslim is in office, things suddenly become one sided.  I'm still on the fence until I can read the transcripts.

Moosie

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

Not that we don't already have issues, but when you can't chose what you do with your property then we really have an issue. This is a joke that this guy was even pursued.

The left talks about "consenting adults" in regards to sexually challenged marriage , they talk about "a woman's right to choose on abortion"  yet they see something wrong with a citizen selling something to someone else for a profit when both were able to own it.

The double standards never cease to amaze me.

[SturmRugerSR9]

Speaking of the Supreme Court, if one more Chief Justice steps down for any reason, Obama will appoint another Liber/Progressive, and that will be the end of the 2nd Amendment and then goes the 1st Amendment. Yes we're that close to it.

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

Speaking of the Supreme Court, if one more Chief Justice steps down for any reason, Obama will appoint another Liber/Progressive, and that will be the end of the 2nd Amendment and then goes the 1st Amendment. Yes we're that close to it.

That is what happens when we have not qualifications to vote is we get presidents like Obama who appoint justices like Kagan and when people want something for nothing we get the same.

You are right and I tried to warn many of that and McCain and Romeny both were not remotely conservative enough, but I firmly would believe they would put more gun friendly people on the bench than Obama. Maybe not as gun friendly as we like, but not someone wanting to take rights away.

I said it before and ill say it again we are heading for civil war and most are too brilliant to see it.

[Adrenolin]

This law was originally supposed to stop illegal trafficking of weapons.. Not a gift between a son and father or the other way around. It's a perfect example of how the legal system has been twisted around. If someone legally allowed to own a firearm wants to purchase and firearm for someone else whose legally allowed to own a firearm they darn well should be able to... Not allowed or permitted to. Nor give the cash for the other person to go buy it.

Regardless of his intent, both parties were legally allowed to own firearms. This is a Loophole in allowing a corrupt system press charges against the normally upstanding people of this country. This is a complete waste of the peoples time and money.