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

[hazlnut]

There are more than a few people who are upset that you can't lie when purchasing a firearm.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are more than a few people who are upset that you can't lie when purchasing a firearm.

Who says you can't? Happens all the time.

 

[Contumacious]

its not a question of time, its a question of intent. Here they have evidence that he clearly bought the gun for someone else.

Yup, someone who paid him in advance to buy it for him.

He clearly violated the law. If he had obeyed it, he would have been prevented from buying the gun.

The actual issue (undiscussed by the Supreme Court) is that there was no reason (outside of that law) to prevent either of these two guys from buying a gun... so this means that law is unconstitutional.

Similarly, Jack Miller also clearly violated Federal law when he bought a shotgun and brought it across a state line in the 1930s. The Federal court in that case, didn't find Miller guilty. Instead, they declared the law to be an unconstitutional violation of Miller's right to keep and bear arms. (US v. Miller, in Federal Court for Western District of Arkansas, Jan. 3, 1939).

That should have been the outcome of this case, too.

Then it's a silly ruling. .

Whatever it takes to prevent the SCOTUS usurpation from causing any harm to freemen .

.

 

[Steinlight]

Wow, the government is anti-family and anti-gun, what a shock. And they wonder why they have such low approval ratings?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Abramski clearly violated the law. If he had obeyed it, he would have been prevented from buying the gun.

The actual issue (undiscussed by the Supreme Court) is that there was no reason to prevent either of these two guys from buying a gun... so this means that law that would prevent them, is unconstitutional.

Similarly, Jack Miller also clearly violated Federal law when he bought a shotgun and brought it across a state line in the 1930s. The Federal court in that case, didn't find Miller guilty. Instead, they declared the law to be an unconstitutional violation of Miller's right to keep and bear arms. (US v. Miller, in Federal Court for Western District of Arkansas, Jan. 3, 1939).

That should have been the outcome of this case, too.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well he was not allowed to buy THAT gun under THOSE circumstances. Had he explained to the dealer what he was doing the dealer would have stopped the sale.

Again, what is achieved by prohibiting an otherwise lawful person buying a gun for an otherwise lawful person?

A violation of his constitutional rights, is achieved. Just as the gun-haters wanted.

What is achieved, as ATF argued, was the inability of the government to track who owns what guns. That's really the subtext here.

they did not achieve that in this case

you can still buy a firearm and gift it away (chain of ownership is broke)
you can still immediately sell the firearm (chain of ownership is broke)
you can still buy a firearm to use as a raffle prize (chain of ownership is broke)

in all three cases you are considered the transferee buyer

 

[Paperman299]

What you're describing is voter fraud, which is illegal, because it deprives the legitimate voter of his rights.
How is that analogous to this firearms case?

Well, let's add back in all the criteria from when I first posed this question earlier in the thread:

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.

OK, you have failed not only to answer the question as to what good is served by this rule. You have also failed to defend your analogy. What does this say about you?

To flatly state Abramski was not allowed to buy a gun is not really representative of what happened. Abramski would have no problem buying a gun, and neither would his uncle. But we have regulations for how you go about it. You can't buy a gun in any way you want, just like you can't vote in any way you want. To allow otherwise would open holes in the system that would undermine the effects of those regulations.

You quoted this earlier and yet you are still bewildered by my voting analogy. Laying this out like I would for a child: voting and gun ownership are both constitutionally-guaranteed rights, but we still have laws in place to regulate them. In my voting example, Abramski's uncle also attempted to use his nephew as the face the government saw while exercising a right he would have had anyway. The government does not bar the uncle from voting or buying a gun, just from using his nephew for the paperwork.

Even if the uncle has Abramski's permission to do this, it is still voter fraud. It does not matter that both of them are legally-registered voters, or that the effect in this particular case is benign (which is your number-one reason why Abramski should have had a pass); the manner in which the uncle has gone about it is illegal. If it were not illegal, voter fraud would be significantly easier. Likewise, legalizing straw purchases would increase the already-sizable number of illegal guns which are acquired in that way.

Although I suppose if you believe straw purchases account for effectively 0% of illegal guns (which is still as wrong as it was yesterday), I could see why you'd believe there's no reason to have such a law.

 

[The T]

Wow, the government is anti-family and anti-gun, what a shock. And they wonder why they have such low approval ratings?

And pro 100% control freaks. This government is run by tyrants.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, let's add back in all the criteria from when I first posed this question earlier in the thread:

OK, you have failed not only to answer the question as to what good is served by this rule. You have also failed to defend your analogy. What does this say about you?

To flatly state Abramski was not allowed to buy a gun is not really representative of what happened. Abramski would have no problem buying a gun, and neither would his uncle. But we have regulations for how you go about it. You can't buy a gun in any way you want, just like you can't vote in any way you want. To allow otherwise would open holes in the system that would undermine the effects of those regulations.

You quoted this earlier and yet you are still bewildered by my voting analogy. Laying this out like I would for a child: voting and gun ownership are both constitutionally-guaranteed rights, but we still have laws in place to regulate them. In my voting example, Abramski's uncle also attempted to use his nephew as the face the government saw while exercising a right he would have had anyway. The government does not bar the uncle from voting or buying a gun, just from using his nephew for the paperwork.

Even if the uncle has Abramski's permission to do this, it is still voter fraud. It does not matter that both of them are legally-registered voters, or that the effect in this particular case is benign (which is your number-one reason why Abramski should have had a pass); the manner in which the uncle has gone about it is illegal. If it were not illegal, voter fraud would be significantly easier. Likewise, legalizing straw purchases would increase the already-sizable number of illegal guns which are acquired in that way.

Although I suppose if you believe straw purchases account for effectively 0% of illegal guns (which is still as wrong as it was yesterday), I could see why you'd believe there's no reason to have such a law.

Your argument is an exercise in circular reasoning. IT is illegal because it is illegal. The analogy doesnt hold at all, you are comparing a purchase to a personal duty. It is more like you get called for jury duty and we agree that I'll show up instead. You also push the idea that all straw purchases result in "illegal guns" (whatever the hell that means), although here is an example where that does not happen. And I'll add that the ruling does absolutely zero to cut down on "illegal guns" (whatever the hell that is) because the rule is so easily circumvented (for the reading impaired that means anyone with 2 functioning brain cells could get around it).

 

[The Rabbi]

A violation of his constitutional rights, is achieved. Just as the gun-haters wanted.

What is achieved, as ATF argued, was the inability of the government to track who owns what guns. That's really the subtext here.

they did not achieve that in this case

you can still buy a firearm and gift it away (chain of ownership is broke)
you can still immediately sell the firearm (chain of ownership is broke)
you can still buy a firearm to use as a raffle prize (chain of ownership is broke)

in all three cases you are considered the transferee buyer

They achieved it in the case of the guy who sees a gun he knows his buddy wants and buys it for him expecting to be paid back. Yes, of course it is stupid. The government cannot track guns. I probably got 30 "trace requests" over 8years where a gun was recovered and the serial number run. In every case the gun had been previously stolen, so no chain of ownership.

 

[Geaux4it]

There are more than a few people who are upset that you can't lie when purchasing a firearm.

What do you mean? Folks lie all the time. And when they are caught, they aren't prosecuted by DOJ.

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

What is achieved, as ATF argued, was the inability of the government to track who owns what guns. That's really the subtext here.

they did not achieve that in this case

you can still buy a firearm and gift it away (chain of ownership is broke)
you can still immediately sell the firearm (chain of ownership is broke)
you can still buy a firearm to use as a raffle prize (chain of ownership is broke)

in all three cases you are considered the transferee buyer

They achieved it in the case of the guy who sees a gun he knows his buddy wants and buys it for him expecting to be paid back. Yes, of course it is stupid. The government cannot track guns. I probably got 30 "trace requests" over 8years where a gun was recovered and the serial number run. In every case the gun had been previously stolen, so no chain of ownership.

i see where you are coming from

and agree the decision was a poor one

but you can buy a firearm and immediately sell it

and still not be lying on line 11 A

kagans opinion seems to hinge on the nephew was not

the actual buyer that the uncle and nephew hatched a plan

or conspired prior to the sale even though no law was broken and in fact the

"chain of ownership" did remain intact

since the uncle did a 4473 and background check

in his own state

 

[jon_berzerk]

There are more than a few people who are upset that you can't lie when purchasing a firearm.

What do you mean? Folks lie all the time. And when they are caught, they aren't prosecuted by DOJ.

-Geaux

according to the atf and kagan at the Supreme Court

i can walk into a gun store knowing full well that i am

not going to keep the firearm

and pen a YES on 11A 4473 form (a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s))

and not be considered lying on the form

making it a legal sale

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well, let's add back in all the criteria from when I first posed this question earlier in the thread:

OK, you have failed not only to answer the question as to what good is served by this rule. You have also failed to defend your analogy. What does this say about you?

To flatly state Abramski was not allowed to buy a gun is not really representative of what happened. Abramski would have no problem buying a gun, and neither would his uncle. But we have regulations for how you go about it. You can't buy a gun in any way you want, just like you can't vote in any way you want. To allow otherwise would open holes in the system that would undermine the effects of those regulations.

You quoted this earlier and yet you are still bewildered by my voting analogy. Laying this out like I would for a child: voting and gun ownership are both constitutionally-guaranteed rights, but we still have laws in place to regulate them. In my voting example, Abramski's uncle also attempted to use his nephew as the face the government saw while exercising a right he would have had anyway. The government does not bar the uncle from voting or buying a gun, just from using his nephew for the paperwork.

Even if the uncle has Abramski's permission to do this, it is still voter fraud. It does not matter that both of them are legally-registered voters, or that the effect in this particular case is benign (which is your number-one reason why Abramski should have had a pass); the manner in which the uncle has gone about it is illegal. If it were not illegal, voter fraud would be significantly easier. Likewise, legalizing straw purchases would increase the already-sizable number of illegal guns which are acquired in that way.

Although I suppose if you believe straw purchases account for effectively 0% of illegal guns (which is still as wrong as it was yesterday), I could see why you'd believe there's no reason to have such a law.

Abramski's uncle also attempted to use his nephew as the face the government saw while exercising a right he would have had anyway.

bs the uncle also did his own set of Federal paperwork recognizing him as the

transferee/buyer of the firearm

 

[Geaux4it]

There are more than a few people who are upset that you can't lie when purchasing a firearm.

What do you mean? Folks lie all the time. And when they are caught, they aren't prosecuted by DOJ.

-Geaux

according to the atf and kagan at the Supreme Court

i can walk into a gun store knowing full well that i am

not going to keep the firearm

and pen a YES on 11A 4473 form (a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s))

and not be considered lying on the form

making it a legal sale

I agree- I was referencing the convicted felon question.

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

Abramski clearly violated the law. If he had obeyed it, he would have been prevented from buying the gun.

The actual issue (undiscussed by the Supreme Court) is that there was no reason to prevent either of these two guys from buying a gun... so this means that law that would prevent them, is unconstitutional.

Similarly, Jack Miller also clearly violated Federal law when he bought a shotgun and brought it across a state line in the 1930s. The Federal court in that case, didn't find Miller guilty. Instead, they declared the law to be an unconstitutional violation of Miller's right to keep and bear arms. (US v. Miller, in Federal Court for Western District of Arkansas, Jan. 3, 1939).

That should have been the outcome of this case, too.

millers shotgun remains open til this very day

the SC remanded the question of Millers shotgun back to the

lower court to find out the answer and that court never happened

 

[Wildman]

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. Fools! This should teach them that they need to Obey The Law, especially with this new High Court ruling!

the ruling does not change anything

No, just helps LE continue to track firearms, after crimes are committed. Yes, most crimes are committed with those in possession of firearms illegally.

no shit ? really ? WoW, i had no idea criminals commit all....., oooops, MOST, the illegal firearms crimes, when did this news break out ?

whatever, i do thank you for divulging this very important info.
did you get a college degree before or after you learned this world shattering news ?

 

[Wildman]

in my OPINION.., "full gun rights", means i can do anything i want to as long as i break no laws, ALSO..., "full gun rights" should be like the laws were when i bought my first box of .22 ammo, i was 12 y.o., i bought my first handgun when i was 16 y.o., my first "high power" rifle when i was 15 y.o., it was a Winchester M-92 in 25-20WIN., hardly a true "H.P." by todays standards.

the only paperwork involved was the $$$$ i gave the gun shop owner and the receipt he gave me.

THAT !!! Ladies and Gentlemen in my OPINION.., IS "full gun rights",

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are more than a few people who are upset that you can't lie when purchasing a firearm.

There are more than a few anti-gun loons that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are more than a few people who are upset that you can't lie when purchasing a firearm.

There are more than a few anti-gun loons that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Are there any that can't?