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

[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.

Because there was in fact NOTHING WRONG with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun for that uncle. Didn't threaten anybody, hurt anybody, violate anybody's rights.

Which is why it is illegal (forbidden by the 2nd amendment) for the govt to make a law restricing that purchase.

The Supremes should have declared that, in the case of Abramski, the law was unconstitutional. Whether they simply reversed and remanded, or struck down the law altogether, is a question for a different discussion.

But there is no question that this law violated Abramski's and his uncle's right to keep and bear arms. There is no conceivable reason why those two should not have been able to do what they did. And it is ILLEGAL to make a law preventing them from doing it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

Sorry, you've got it backward.

It's not for the Fed to make laws that might catch a few criminals while violating lots of law-abiding people's Constitutional rights.

Since a Constitutional right is involved, the Fed's responsibility is to make sure they don't violate a SINGLE person's constitutional right. With that secure, then the Fed can make laws... as long as no one's constitutional right is violated. Not one.

For that reason, the law that Abramski violated by checking "Yes" on that question on the form, is unconstitutional. It was illegal for Congress to make it in the first place.

The Supremes never addressed this matter.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's not for the Fed to make laws that might catch a few criminals while violating lots of law-abiding people's Constitutional rights.

Since a Constitutional right is involved, the Fed's responsibility is to make sure they don't violate a SINGLE person's constitutional right. With that secure, then the Fed can make laws... as long as no one's constitutional right is violated. Not one.

Or would you say it's OK for the police to beat confessions out of a bunch of people (violating 5th amendment), if it resulted in some criminals being caught, convicted, and sentenced to the punishment they deserved, while the rest turned out innocent?

 

[hunarcy]

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]

Not really true. Wide Receiver was a botched, small-scale, law enforcement gun-smuggling interdiction effort that involved local Phoenix-based ATF agents working in conjunction with Mexican law enforcement. When guns were lost — roughly 200 — irate supervisors immediately shut down the program.

Wide Receiver could hardly be any more different than Fast and Furious.

Fast and Furious used elements of at least four cabinet-level departments: Justice, State, Homeland Security, and Treasury. U.S. attorneys, the directors of the FBI and DEA, the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, and senior DOJ officials were briefed. High-level State Department approval was critical, in order to avoid breaking arms export control laws. Even the White House National Security Counsil (NSC) had direct communications about the operation.

Unlike Wide Receiver, Operation Fast and Furious excluded Mexican government officials. Instead of working in conjunction with Mexican law enforcement in order to prevent gun smuggling, the operation was designed to ensure that more than 2,000 guns would be successfully smuggled into Mexico by the drug cartels to be used in violent crimes.

Operation Wide Receiver was a failed law enforcement operation that was shut down immediately when it went wrong. Operation Fast and Furious was a possible criminal conspiracy to ensure that one of the most powerful and violent criminal cartels in the world was armed not with inexpensive fully-automatic military weapons that can be had on the black market very cheaply, but with sporting semi-automatics that were American-imported or manufactured firearms costing 100%-400% more. The obvious, and only logical, explanation for such a plot was to ensure that as many American weapons as possible were showing up at Mexican crime scenes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abramski said he and his relative were legally able to own it. But he was charged with making false statements, convicted and sentenced to probation.

At issue is whether such misstatements are "material" to an otherwise lawful sale and whether that kind of information should be kept by a federally licensed dealer.

So again, the issue has nothing to do with the ability to purchase or obtain a firearm. The notion that Abramski was “a victim of vast government overreach” is ignorant, hyperbolic idiocy, as everyone is required to follow the same law and process, and when one lies, or misrepresents, or misstates during the course of the background check process, he is appropriately and Constitutionally subject to prosecution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Perhaps you need to look up the word 'opinion' in the dictionary @JakeStarkey . Opinions are neither right nor wrong, they are simply opinions. And since when do you get to tell others when or if their opinions are right or wrong? Hmm? What makes yours right? Oh but wait, I know plenty about Fast and Furious. It wasn't Operation Wide Receiver, which was shut down two years prior to Obama coming into office. I can present evidence to back my 'opinion' which makes it a 'fact,' you are on the other hand thinking you can discredit anyone and any opinion you wish simply by telling them they don't know anything and are wrong.

I will take that response as a concession. When you understand how to make a cogent argument, please by all means discuss it with us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Because there was in fact NOTHING WRONG with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun for that uncle. Didn't threaten anybody, hurt anybody, violate anybody's rights.

Which is why it is illegal (forbidden by the 2nd amendment) for the govt to make a law restricing that purchase.

The Supremes should have declared that, in the case of Abramski, the law was unconstitutional. Whether they simply reversed and remanded, or struck down the law altogether, is a question for a different discussion.

But there is no question that this law violated Abramski's and his uncle's right to keep and bear arms. There is no conceivable reason why those two should not have been able to do what they did. And it is ILLEGAL to make a law preventing them from doing it.

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong:

The practical effect of the ruling is likely to be shutting down, or at least cutting back on, an active market in gun-buying by “straw purchasers” — that is, mere stand-ins for the real buyers. The Court cited data that about half of all federal investigations of illegal gun trafficking involve such purchasers.

“Deliverymen, after all, are not so hard to come by,” the Court majority remarked.

The ruling was limited to an analysis of the scope of a federal criminal law. There was no claim of interference with the right under the Second Amendment to have a gun for personal use.
Opinion analysis: No stand-in gun buyers allowed : SCOTUSblog

 

[Paperman299]

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.

Because there was in fact NOTHING WRONG with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun for that uncle. Didn't threaten anybody, hurt anybody, violate anybody's rights.

Which is why it is illegal (forbidden by the 2nd amendment) for the govt to make a law restricing that purchase.

The Supremes should have declared that, in the case of Abramski, the law was unconstitutional. Whether they simply reversed and remanded, or struck down the law altogether, is a question for a different discussion.

But there is no question that this law violated Abramski's and his uncle's right to keep and bear arms. There is no conceivable reason why those two should not have been able to do what they did. And it is ILLEGAL to make a law preventing them from doing it.

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.

Sorry, you've got it backward.

It's not for the Fed to make laws that might catch a few criminals while violating lots of law-abiding people's Constitutional rights.

Since a Constitutional right is involved, the Fed's responsibility is to make sure they don't violate a SINGLE person's constitutional right. With that secure, then the Fed can make laws... as long as no one's constitutional right is violated. Not one.

For that reason, the law that Abramski violated by checking "Yes" on that question on the form, is unconstitutional. It was illegal for Congress to make it in the first place.

The Supremes never addressed this matter.

It's not for the Fed to make laws that might catch a few criminals while violating lots of law-abiding people's Constitutional rights.

Since a Constitutional right is involved, the Fed's responsibility is to make sure they don't violate a SINGLE person's constitutional right. With that secure, then the Fed can make laws... as long as no one's constitutional right is violated. Not one.

Or would you say it's OK for the police to beat confessions out of a bunch of people (violating 5th amendment), if it resulted in some criminals being caught, convicted, and sentenced to the punishment they deserved, while the rest turned out innocent?

I sat back and chewed on your words for a bit, but I still don't feel Abramski's 2nd Amendment rights were violated. In the example you presented, and in the language you used, you suggest the government acted on Abramski. But Abramski was never barred from attaining a firearm. He misrepresented himself and attempted to facilitate a purchase for someone the dealer couldn't know about.

I think a better example would be if the next day, Abramski's uncle for some reason tried to vote using his nephew's ID. Even if both parties were agreed to it, and the uncle was a registered voter himself, he'd still be guilty of voter fraud.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Because there was in fact NOTHING WRONG with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun for that uncle. Didn't threaten anybody, hurt anybody, violate anybody's rights.

Which is why it is illegal (forbidden by the 2nd amendment) for the govt to make a law restricing that purchase.

The Supremes should have declared that, in the case of Abramski, the law was unconstitutional. Whether they simply reversed and remanded, or struck down the law altogether, is a question for a different discussion.

But there is no question that this law violated Abramski's and his uncle's right to keep and bear arms. There is no conceivable reason why those two should not have been able to do what they did. And it is ILLEGAL to make a law preventing them from doing it.

Sorry, you've got it backward.

It's not for the Fed to make laws that might catch a few criminals while violating lots of law-abiding people's Constitutional rights.

Since a Constitutional right is involved, the Fed's responsibility is to make sure they don't violate a SINGLE person's constitutional right. With that secure, then the Fed can make laws... as long as no one's constitutional right is violated. Not one.

For that reason, the law that Abramski violated by checking "Yes" on that question on the form, is unconstitutional. It was illegal for Congress to make it in the first place.

The Supremes never addressed this matter.

It's not for the Fed to make laws that might catch a few criminals while violating lots of law-abiding people's Constitutional rights.

Since a Constitutional right is involved, the Fed's responsibility is to make sure they don't violate a SINGLE person's constitutional right. With that secure, then the Fed can make laws... as long as no one's constitutional right is violated. Not one.

Or would you say it's OK for the police to beat confessions out of a bunch of people (violating 5th amendment), if it resulted in some criminals being caught, convicted, and sentenced to the punishment they deserved, while the rest turned out innocent?

I sat back and chewed on your words for a bit, but I still don't feel Abramski's 2nd Amendment rights were violated. In the example you presented, and in the language you used, you suggest the government acted on Abramski. But Abramski was never barred from attaining a firearm. He misrepresented himself and attempted to facilitate a purchase for someone the dealer couldn't know about.

I think a better example would be if the next day, Abramski's uncle for some reason tried to vote using his nephew's ID. Even if both parties were agreed to it, and the uncle was a registered voter himself, he'd still be guilty of voter fraud.

but I still don't feel Abramski's 2nd Amendment rights were violated.

his rights had not been violated

He misrepresented himself

he did he was not the actual buyer or transferee


facilitate a purchase for someone the dealer couldn't know about

irrelevant

it is perfectly legal and you are considered the actual buyer

if you plan to gift the firearm to another

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are
the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or
otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from
pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the
actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift
for a third party

http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/4473_Draft.pdf

 

[Politico]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

it was a clear case of a straw purchase

the uncle paid the nephew in advance of the sale

Exactly. They enforced a law already on the books. No one took a hit whatever that means.

 

[Kosh]

No matter how much the far left tries, they can not repeal the 2nd amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Because there was in fact NOTHING WRONG with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun for that uncle. Didn't threaten anybody, hurt anybody, violate anybody's rights.

Which is why it is illegal (forbidden by the 2nd amendment) for the govt to make a law restricing that purchase.

The Supremes should have declared that, in the case of Abramski, the law was unconstitutional. Whether they simply reversed and remanded, or struck down the law altogether, is a question for a different discussion.

But there is no question that this law violated Abramski's and his uncle's right to keep and bear arms. There is no conceivable reason why those two should not have been able to do what they did. And it is ILLEGAL to make a law preventing them from doing it.

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong:

The practical effect of the ruling is likely to be shutting down, or at least cutting back on, an active market in gun-buying by “straw purchasers” — that is, mere stand-ins for the real buyers. The Court cited data that about half of all federal investigations of illegal gun trafficking involve such purchasers.

“Deliverymen, after all, are not so hard to come by,” the Court majority remarked.

The ruling was limited to an analysis of the scope of a federal criminal law. There was no claim of interference with the right under the Second Amendment to have a gun for personal use.
Opinion analysis: No stand-in gun buyers allowed : SCOTUSblog

You prove with every post you know absolutely nothing at all about this topic.
In fact the practical effect is nothing. All dealers have gone along with ATF's interpretation. The Court validated that interpretation. Ergo nothing changes. Anyone who thinks there will be fewer straw purchases as a result has his head up his ass.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

it was a clear case of a straw purchase

the uncle paid the nephew in advance of the sale

Exactly. They enforced a law already on the books. No on took a hit whatever that means.

There was no law on the books that covered this. IT was ATF's interpretation of the law that was at issue. But since everyone has played by ATF's rules anyway there is no change.

 

[Geaux4it]

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

What's not to understand?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Abramski said he and his relative were legally able to own it. But he was charged with making false statements, convicted and sentenced to probation.

At issue is whether such misstatements are "material" to an otherwise lawful sale and whether that kind of information should be kept by a federally licensed dealer.

So again, the issue has nothing to do with the ability to purchase or obtain a firearm. The notion that Abramski was “a victim of vast government overreach” is ignorant, hyperbolic idiocy, as everyone is required to follow the same law and process, and when one lies, or misrepresents, or misstates during the course of the background check process, he is appropriately and Constitutionally subject to prosecution.

Then why is the left not demanding prosecution of Barack Obama?

-Geaux

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Opinions are neither right nor wrong, they are simply opinions." So someone says his opinion it is alright to take his neighbors possessions because he wants them.

"And since when do you get to tell others when or if their opinions are right or wrong?" Because everyone has a right to an opinion and tell another person they are right or wrong.

"I can present evidence to back my 'opinion' which makes it a 'fact,'. . ." No, you can't.

The response is that when you make a silly opinion as if it were factual, I will correct you.

 

[Dot Com]

Good ruling.

yep. I hate middle men. HATE!!! PLUS they're allowing people access to guns who prolly can't access them legally through the normal channels.

 

[The Rabbi]

Good ruling.

yep. I hate middle men. HATE!!! PLUS they're allowing people access to guns who prolly can't access them legally through the normal channels.

Six pages and two threads and you still don't have a clue what this is all about.
What does that say about you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

The court upheld a law that no one disagrees with.
Boy, you sure got us.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

The court upheld a law that no one disagrees with.
Boy, you sure got us.

That isnt what happened either. The Court expanded ATF's power, which is a loss. In practical terms there's no difference to us.