FULL Gun Rights? Uh, Not So Fast Says Supreme Court!

[Peach]

Abramski clearly violated the law by doing what he did.

But, the law aside, there was nothing wrong with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun and transfer it to the uncle. It hurt no one, threatened no one, scared no one, violated no one's rights.

And the 2nd amendment says it is flatly illegal for government to make a law forbidding such a transaction.

Some purchase legally, and resell at huge profit to those will no intention of legal use, surprise.* That does not mean this is a prime example. In this case, it is easy to sympathize with the nephew. Looks like a test case. I am not a so called "gun grabber", read my posts on the subject

*As do some prescribed pain medications, the biggest drug problem of the 21st century, at least in my area of the country; "tough punishment" has not hindered the pill trade.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nonsense.

The ruling has nothing to do with "gun rights," and addresses only the appropriate application of the law.

Yes it quite clearly is a gun rights case. Do you have the right, as a lawful citizen to buy a gun for someone else who is also a lawful citizen and have him pay you back for it? The court answered No.

that is not exactly correct

the uncle paid him for the gun three days before the sale

otherwise they followed the law

Even if the uncle had paid him afterwards it would still have been a straw purchase as Abramski was not the actual buyer.

 

[The Rabbi]

Abramski clearly violated the law by doing what he did.

But, the law aside, there was nothing wrong with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun and transfer it to the uncle. It hurt no one, threatened no one, scared no one, violated no one's rights.

And the 2nd amendment says it is flatly illegal for government to make a law forbidding such a transaction.

Some purchase legally, and resell at huge profit to those will no intention of legal use, surprise.* That does not mean this is a prime example. In this case, it is easy to sympathize with the nephew. Looks like a test case. I am not a so called "gun grabber", read my posts on the subject

*As do some prescribed pain medications, the biggest drug problem of the 21st century, at least in my area of the country; "tough punishment" has not hindered the pill trade.

No actually no one does that. There isnt that kind of profit margin in guns. Instead guns are stolen and then sold at huge profits to the cost.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Abramski clearly violated the law by doing what he did.

But, the law aside, there was nothing wrong with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun and transfer it to the uncle. It hurt no one, threatened no one, scared no one, violated no one's rights.

And the 2nd amendment says it is flatly illegal for government to make a law forbidding such a transaction.

That does not mean this is a prime example.

I never said it was.

I said that the law violated Abramski's and his uncles right to keep and bear arms.

And for that reason the Supremes should have either struck it down, or reversed and remanded.

They might consider sending a note to Congress saying, "If your law violates even one American citizen's constitutional rights, we have no choice but to rule against it. When legislating in this area, YOU have no choice but to make sure it doesn't violate even one citizen's constitutional right."

Or something along those lines.

What other criteria could the Supremes possibly use, if they examine the question of the law violating the two defendants' rights?

 

[daveman]

Began under Bush, CONTINUED under Obama, unto 2011, no excuses:

"Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them."[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7] The Chambers case[who?] began in October 2009, and eventually became known in February 2010 as "Operation Fast and Furious" after agents discovered some of the suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.[1]

And the fact that Obama continued it makes him equally as responsible as Bush. No excuses.

Began under Bush, STOPPED under Bush, restarted under Obama.

President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program ?Begun Under the Previous Administration? - ABC News

 

[daveman]

...BTW, the 2nd amendment says it's flatly illegal for government to make a law interfering with Abramski or his uncle buying a gun. But the Supreme Court carefully didn't address that fact.

The Second Amendment defines the right to "keep and bear" and says nothing about the buying and selling arms. Commercial transactions are covered by other clauses in the Constitution.

The activist Roberts Court has turned its back on many years of precedent and chosen to ignore the "well-regulated militia" clause which seems to establish the guiding justification for the keep-and-bear language. The miraculous finding of a right to keep arms for home self-defense without any connection to the need for a militia is a stunningly awkward bit of judicial activism. You will live to see the ruling of the Roberts Court dumped like the Dred Scott decision. It is very poor law.

Criminals thank you for your support in their desire to have their victims disarmed.

 

[daveman]

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns.

Name one.

(yawn)

Personally, other than the facts I hear in the news or read about in magazines germane to that issue, I don't have that type of database or I surely would if it was public information! For that you will need to contact a law enforcement office but in the meantime this is certainly worth reading. It is short but to the point and gives much food for thought.

Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended? | A conversation on TED.com

So, you can't back up your assertion. Not at all surprising, really.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yes it quite clearly is a gun rights case. Do you have the right, as a lawful citizen to buy a gun for someone else who is also a lawful citizen and have him pay you back for it? The court answered No.

that is not exactly correct

the uncle paid him for the gun three days before the sale

otherwise they followed the law

Even if the uncle had paid him afterwards it would still have been a straw purchase as Abramski was not the actual buyer.

that depends on intent

if the nephew decided to sell the firearm

to his uncle or anyone else at a later time

no law would be broken

however if he intended to purchase a firearm for another

with the intent to sell it

then he would not be the actual buyer

 

[JakeStarkey]

TK, when you understand Fast and Furious, discuss it with us.

And you do? Sure, please educate me.

You mentioned it, thus is its your burden.

Remember that a good brief includes all pertinent facts.

Not personal opinion.

Go for it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Began under Bush, CONTINUED under Obama, unto 2011, no excuses:

"Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them."[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7] The Chambers case[who?] began in October 2009, and eventually became known in February 2010 as "Operation Fast and Furious" after agents discovered some of the suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.[1]

And the fact that Obama continued it makes him equally as responsible as Bush. No excuses.

Began under Bush, STOPPED under Bush, restarted under Obama.

President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program ?Begun Under the Previous Administration? - ABC News

Began under Bush, STOPPED under Bush, restarted under Obama.

and it was known to the obama administration

that this action was a failure

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK, when you understand Fast and Furious, discuss it with us.

And you do? Sure, please educate me.

You mentioned it, thus is its your burden.

Remember that a good brief includes all pertinent facts.

Not personal opinion.

Go for it.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

Hey, you accused me of not understanding it, so I say the burden is on you to demonstrate your superior knowledge on the subject. Please. The 'burden of proof' fallacy you employ is quite evident. Put up or shut up.

 

[Darkwind]

Began under Bush, CONTINUED under Obama, unto 2011, no excuses:

"Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them."[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7] The Chambers case[who?] began in October 2009, and eventually became known in February 2010 as "Operation Fast and Furious" after agents discovered some of the suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.[1]

Watch the whole thing, but pay attention at 1:05.....

IT did NOT begin under Bush and...

The two programs are NOT the same.

 

[martybegan]

...BTW, the 2nd amendment says it's flatly illegal for government to make a law interfering with Abramski or his uncle buying a gun. But the Supreme Court carefully didn't address that fact.

The Second Amendment defines the right to "keep and bear" and says nothing about the buying and selling arms. Commercial transactions are covered by other clauses in the Constitution.

The activist Roberts Court has turned its back on many years of precedent and chosen to ignore the "well-regulated militia" clause which seems to establish the guiding justification for the keep-and-bear language. The miraculous finding of a right to keep arms for home self-defense without any connection to the need for a militia is a stunningly awkward bit of judicial activism. You will live to see the ruling of the Roberts Court dumped like the Dred Scott decision. It is very poor law.

Learn to read the amendment. The purpose of the first clause is to prevent the feds from preventing the states from forming militias. The second part clearly leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people, as in their view, without a freely armed populace, militias would be impossible to form.

 

[martybegan]

Yes it quite clearly is a gun rights case. Do you have the right, as a lawful citizen to buy a gun for someone else who is also a lawful citizen and have him pay you back for it? The court answered No.

that is not exactly correct

the uncle paid him for the gun three days before the sale

otherwise they followed the law

Even if the uncle had paid him afterwards it would still have been a straw purchase as Abramski was not the actual buyer.

He willfully checked off a form with false information. Even if you want to debate the validity of the form even including that information *(which the court didn't) the law was clear on that being a "no-no"

Its a lesson to ACTUALLY READ what you are signing off on.

 

[Paperman299]

Cool. Good.

...Honestly, though, I think everyone is fine with this. Is there someone on the board who is pro-straw purchases? I guess that person would be pretty mad right now.

Take that...you!

Please tell me what interest of public safety is served by prohibiting one lawful person from buying a gun for another lawful person and getting paid back for it. You realize if Abramski had given the gun to his uncle as a gift there would be no case whatsoever, right?

I stand corrected; there is someone.

Making sure people aren't purchasing guns to pass them off to those who can't is pretty high in the interest of public safety, I think. Of course, you have something to say about that as well.

Some purchase legally, and resell at huge profit to those will no intention of legal use, surprise.* That does not mean this is a prime example. In this case, it is easy to sympathize with the nephew. Looks like a test case. I am not a so called "gun grabber", read my posts on the subject

*As do some prescribed pain medications, the biggest drug problem of the 21st century, at least in my area of the country; "tough punishment" has not hindered the pill trade.

No actually no one does that. There isnt that kind of profit margin in guns. Instead guns are stolen and then sold at huge profits to the cost.

"No one?" Wrong. Stolen guns are huge, but straw purchases are also a major source of illegal guns.

Still, Molchan [director of the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers] acknowledged that "straw-man buying for people is a problem. There are two big sources for criminal guns — No. 1 is theft from private homes and the other is straw-man purchases: they buy a gun for somebody who is a felon and they sell it to the other person for a mark up. It’s been a problem for a long time.”

 

[The Rabbi]

Cool. Good.

...Honestly, though, I think everyone is fine with this. Is there someone on the board who is pro-straw purchases? I guess that person would be pretty mad right now.

Take that...you!

Please tell me what interest of public safety is served by prohibiting one lawful person from buying a gun for another lawful person and getting paid back for it. You realize if Abramski had given the gun to his uncle as a gift there would be no case whatsoever, right?

I stand corrected; there is someone.

Making sure people aren't purchasing guns to pass them off to those who can't is pretty high in the interest of public safety, I think. Of course, you have something to say about that as well.

No actually no one does that. There isnt that kind of profit margin in guns. Instead guns are stolen and then sold at huge profits to the cost.

"No one?" Wrong. Stolen guns are huge, but straw purchases are also a major source of illegal guns.

Still, Molchan [director of the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers] acknowledged that "straw-man buying for people is a problem. There are two big sources for criminal guns — No. 1 is theft from private homes and the other is straw-man purchases: they buy a gun for somebody who is a felon and they sell it to the other person for a mark up. It’s been a problem for a long time.”

We're not talking about the ultimate buyer being prohibited. Everyone agrees they shouldn't have guns. Here the issue is what public safety issue is addressed by a lawful buyer buying a gun for another lawful buyer. Please address that issue, not something else you've made up.
And sorry but my 10 years in the retail gun business trumps your Googling for articles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, you accused me of not understanding it, so I say the burden is on you to demonstrate your superior knowledge on the subject. Please. The 'burden of proof' fallacy you employ is quite evident. Put up or shut up.

You opinioned, I told you your opinion was wrong, so now it is on you. Go look up how to build a brief. Good luck.

 

[daveman]

Hey, you accused me of not understanding it, so I say the burden is on you to demonstrate your superior knowledge on the subject. Please. The 'burden of proof' fallacy you employ is quite evident. Put up or shut up.

You opinioned, I told you your opinion was wrong, so now it is on you. Go look up how to build a brief. Good luck.

You SUCK at debate, kid.

 

[Paperman299]

We're not talking about the ultimate buyer being prohibited. Everyone agrees they shouldn't have guns. Here the issue is what public safety issue is addressed by a lawful buyer buying a gun for another lawful buyer. Please address that issue, not something else you've made up.
And sorry but my 10 years in the retail gun business trumps your Googling for articles.

lol, no fiction in my post. Only one of us has tried to make a broad, definitive claim about illegal guns which is obviously wrong.

You asked what public interest was served by enforcement of this law, and I told you. Outlawing straw purchases makes it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them. People can't break laws just because their purpose is benign.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, his uncle gave him the money to buy the gun, since Abramski was a cop and could get a discount. It was unquestionably a violation of the written law.

Which means the law was badly written at best, and unconstitutional at worst.