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

[Paperman299]

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).

Ha, ok. So you've labeled voting a "personal duty," and tried to replace my analogy with something that actually is a duty. That's why it's called "jury duty" - because it's not voluntary. People should vote, but like buying a gun, it's a Constitutional right which you can choose to exercise, or not. My analogy stands.

It's funny, I actually have nowhere stated anything like, "all straw purchases result in illegal guns." But when I think about it, yeah, I figure that is technically true? The Supreme Court just affirmed it - did you not read the OP? Or did you figure they let Abramski's uncle keep that gun without another word? "Sure, man, keep the gun, it's the least we can do since we're keeping your nephew in probation." "Shucks, Supreme Court, you're all heart."

 

[The Rabbi]

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).

Ha, ok. So you've labeled voting a "personal duty," and tried to replace my analogy with something that actually is a duty. That's why it's called "jury duty" - because it's not voluntary. People should vote, but like buying a gun, it's a Constitutional right which you can choose to exercise, or not. My analogy stands.

It's funny, I actually have nowhere stated anything like, "all straw purchases result in illegal guns." But when I think about it, yeah, I figure that is technically true? The Supreme Court just affirmed it - did you not read the OP? Or did you figure they let Abramski's uncle keep that gun without another word? "Sure, man, keep the gun, it's the least we can do since we're keeping your nephew in probation." "Shucks, Supreme Court, you're all heart."

Voting is a personal duty. It is in no way analogous to buying a gun. Your insisting there is some sort of equivalence is the fallacy of mere assertion. Rabbi Rules!
I questioned what an "illegal gun" is. You failed to answer that.
Why would anyone confiscate the gun from Abramski's uncle? The uncle did nothing wrong. They might have seized it as evidence but they will return it now that the case is over, if they havent already.

 

[Paperman299]

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

From the article in the OP:

"No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun's purchaser," Justice Elena Kagan said, stressing that the dealer in this case could never have known to run a background check on Abramski's uncle.

 

[Paperman299]

Ha, ok. So you've labeled voting a "personal duty," and tried to replace my analogy with something that actually is a duty. That's why it's called "jury duty" - because it's not voluntary. People should vote, but like buying a gun, it's a Constitutional right which you can choose to exercise, or not. My analogy stands.

It's funny, I actually have nowhere stated anything like, "all straw purchases result in illegal guns." But when I think about it, yeah, I figure that is technically true? The Supreme Court just affirmed it - did you not read the OP? Or did you figure they let Abramski's uncle keep that gun without another word? "Sure, man, keep the gun, it's the least we can do since we're keeping your nephew in probation." "Shucks, Supreme Court, you're all heart."

Voting is a personal duty. It is in no way analogous to buying a gun. Your insisting there is some sort of equivalence is the fallacy of mere assertion. Rabbi Rules!
I questioned what an "illegal gun" is. You failed to answer that.
Why would anyone confiscate the gun from Abramski's uncle? The uncle did nothing wrong. They might have seized it as evidence but they will return it now that the case is over, if they havent already.

The label "personal duty" is your own (emotional) label, not a legal one. You could swap it out for "patriotic duty" and get the same effect. I could argue it's your personal/patriotic duty to own a gun with just as much merit. So in the sense that voting and purchasing firearms are both Constitutional rights, yes, they are analogous.

You never "questioned" anything about the term "illegal guns." And though you still have not asked, I will explain that I'm referring to guns that have been acquired illegally. And after suggesting I've made a fallacy of mere assertion after asserting yourself that straw purchases account for effectively 0% of illegal guns, you may be in the market for one of these.

 

[nitroz]

Ahh, and since when have you heard anyone demanding 'full' gun rights? Nobody in their right mind wants someone or anyone to have full unfettered access to a gun. That's inviting a mass murder to take place. All we want is for citizens who have bought a gun, gotten a permit and have undergone a full mental screening to have all the rights afforded them by the Second Amendment.

About almost every other right winger on here.

 

[nitroz]

Cool, the black market took a hit today. You know, most of the gun crimes committed in America are via illegally purchased firearms. I would advise you also to hold your tongue until you hold the Obama Administration accountable for Fast and Furious, were they not the ones who sold firearms to drug cartels? What an irony.

I agree with the decision too. I wouldn't give my firearm to any of my family members until they had a permit and were properly trained with it. And here you are acting like this is something major.

Cartels buy their guns at gunshows mainly in Texas and then smuggle them to Mexico and other places.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/us-guns-mexico-drug-cartels

 

[The Rabbi]

Ha, ok. So you've labeled voting a "personal duty," and tried to replace my analogy with something that actually is a duty. That's why it's called "jury duty" - because it's not voluntary. People should vote, but like buying a gun, it's a Constitutional right which you can choose to exercise, or not. My analogy stands.

It's funny, I actually have nowhere stated anything like, "all straw purchases result in illegal guns." But when I think about it, yeah, I figure that is technically true? The Supreme Court just affirmed it - did you not read the OP? Or did you figure they let Abramski's uncle keep that gun without another word? "Sure, man, keep the gun, it's the least we can do since we're keeping your nephew in probation." "Shucks, Supreme Court, you're all heart."

Voting is a personal duty. It is in no way analogous to buying a gun. Your insisting there is some sort of equivalence is the fallacy of mere assertion. Rabbi Rules!
I questioned what an "illegal gun" is. You failed to answer that.
Why would anyone confiscate the gun from Abramski's uncle? The uncle did nothing wrong. They might have seized it as evidence but they will return it now that the case is over, if they havent already.

The label "personal duty" is your own (emotional) label, not a legal one. You could swap it out for "patriotic duty" and get the same effect. I could argue it's your personal/patriotic duty to own a gun with just as much merit. So in the sense that voting and purchasing firearms are both Constitutional rights, yes, they are analogous.

You never "questioned" anything about the term "illegal guns." And though you still have not asked, I will explain that I'm referring to guns that have been acquired illegally. And after suggesting I've made a fallacy of mere assertion after asserting yourself that straw purchases account for effectively 0% of illegal guns, you may be in the market for one of these.

Personal duty is a recognized concept. It is in no way comparable to making a purchase. You could argue it's a personal duty to own a gun but that is without foundation in the law.
Having an abortion is a constitutional right. Is it analogous to jury duty? No, of course not.
SO quit with the false analogies and explain clearly why one lawful purchaser cannot buy a gun for another lawful purchaser where money changes hands. You understand if no money changes hands then it is perfectly OK. So the "face of the gun buyer being crucial" argument is nonsense.

Guns that are acquired illegally are no more "illegal guns" than jewelry that was stolen are "illegal jewels". They are stolen property.
Guns purchased on a straw purchase are simply not much of a problem. But even if they were there is effectively no way to stop that if you have even a mildly clever and informed purchaser.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cool, the black market took a hit today. You know, most of the gun crimes committed in America are via illegally purchased firearms. I would advise you also to hold your tongue until you hold the Obama Administration accountable for Fast and Furious, were they not the ones who sold firearms to drug cartels? What an irony.

I agree with the decision too. I wouldn't give my firearm to any of my family members until they had a permit and were properly trained with it. And here you are acting like this is something major.

Cartels buy their guns at gunshows mainly in Texas and then smuggle them to Mexico and other places.

How Mexico's drug cartels profit from flow of guns across the border | World news | theguardian.com

Bullshit.
Dealers in Texas are already required to fill out multiple rifle purchase forms. Why didnt ATF investigate the lead scumbag when he bought 5 "assault rifles"?
Cartels buy guns often from the Mexican army and police.

 

[Paperman299]

Personal duty is a recognized concept. It is in no way comparable to making a purchase. You could argue it's a personal duty to own a gun but that is without foundation in the law.
Having an abortion is a constitutional right. Is it analogous to jury duty? No, of course not.
SO quit with the false analogies and explain clearly why one lawful purchaser cannot buy a gun for another lawful purchaser where money changes hands. You understand if no money changes hands then it is perfectly OK. So the "face of the gun buyer being crucial" argument is nonsense.

Guns that are acquired illegally are no more "illegal guns" than jewelry that was stolen are "illegal jewels". They are stolen property.
Guns purchased on a straw purchase are simply not much of a problem. But even if they were there is effectively no way to stop that if you have even a mildly clever and informed purchaser.

Personal duty is a "recognized concept?" Link? Where does voting as a "personal duty" have foundation in the law? None of these arguments aren't so nebulous that they can't be applied to gun purchases.

Also, I was not the one comparing constitutional rights to jury duty. That was you. You are now arguing against your own counter-analogy.

Guns acquired illegally, contrary to your mere assertions, are not always acquired through theft. Anyway, should I let all the "illegal immigrants" know they are in the clear? I don't see anyone with conservative leanings objecting to that terminology.

Seriously, your whole argument rests on this idea that people should be allowed to funnel guns to those who cannot or will not deal directly with the gun retailer. How can you not see how allowing this would be a problem? What is the point of background checks and other regulations on gun sales if there's no punishment for helping someone get around those regulations?

You keep insisting that straw purchases are not a significant factor in the influx of illegal guns, and it's bogus. I showed you pages ago it was bogus. It has not become any less bogus in the last couple of days. Here's an ATF study showing straw purchasing in one scenario accounting for roughly half of the illegal guns they traced. Here's an ATF agent insisting that straw purchases are the largest source of illegal gun trafficking.

And finally here is a study showing that regulation does deter straw purchases. The ATF is able to catch many of these "mildly clever and informed purchasers," and this deters many others. What is even left to argue?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Voting is a personal duty. It is in no way analogous to buying a gun. Your insisting there is some sort of equivalence is the fallacy of mere assertion. Rabbi Rules!
I questioned what an "illegal gun" is. You failed to answer that.
Why would anyone confiscate the gun from Abramski's uncle? The uncle did nothing wrong. They might have seized it as evidence but they will return it now that the case is over, if they havent already.

The label "personal duty" is your own (emotional) label, not a legal one. You could swap it out for "patriotic duty" and get the same effect. I could argue it's your personal/patriotic duty to own a gun with just as much merit. So in the sense that voting and purchasing firearms are both Constitutional rights, yes, they are analogous.

You never "questioned" anything about the term "illegal guns." And though you still have not asked, I will explain that I'm referring to guns that have been acquired illegally. And after suggesting I've made a fallacy of mere assertion after asserting yourself that straw purchases account for effectively 0% of illegal guns, you may be in the market for one of these.

Personal duty is a recognized concept. It is in no way comparable to making a purchase. You could argue it's a personal duty to own a gun but that is without foundation in the law.
Having an abortion is a constitutional right. Is it analogous to jury duty? No, of course not.
SO quit with the false analogies and explain clearly why one lawful purchaser cannot buy a gun for another lawful purchaser where money changes hands. You understand if no money changes hands then it is perfectly OK. So the "face of the gun buyer being crucial" argument is nonsense.

Guns that are acquired illegally are no more "illegal guns" than jewelry that was stolen are "illegal jewels". They are stolen property.
Guns purchased on a straw purchase are simply not much of a problem. But even if they were there is effectively no way to stop that if you have even a mildly clever and informed purchaser.

You understand if no money changes hands then it is perfectly OK.

money can change hands as well for example one can give the gun

away to a complete stranger who happened to have the lucky number at a raffle

"face of the gun buyer" is once again broke

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

From the article in the OP:

"No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun's purchaser," Justice Elena Kagan said, stressing that the dealer in this case could never have known to run a background check on Abramski's uncle.

the uncle went through his own background check in his home state

where he received the firearm as required by law

aside that in a general sense

there are three ways where it is perfectly legal to call yourself

the actual buyer and not making a false statement on 11A

AND the dealer would never have known to run a background check

- purchased as a gift

- resale of the firearm

- for raffle prizes

 

[The Rabbi]

Personal duty is a recognized concept. It is in no way comparable to making a purchase. You could argue it's a personal duty to own a gun but that is without foundation in the law.
Having an abortion is a constitutional right. Is it analogous to jury duty? No, of course not.
SO quit with the false analogies and explain clearly why one lawful purchaser cannot buy a gun for another lawful purchaser where money changes hands. You understand if no money changes hands then it is perfectly OK. So the "face of the gun buyer being crucial" argument is nonsense.

Guns that are acquired illegally are no more "illegal guns" than jewelry that was stolen are "illegal jewels". They are stolen property.
Guns purchased on a straw purchase are simply not much of a problem. But even if they were there is effectively no way to stop that if you have even a mildly clever and informed purchaser.

Personal duty is a "recognized concept?" Link? Where does voting as a "personal duty" have foundation in the law? None of these arguments aren't so nebulous that they can't be applied to gun purchases.

Also, I was not the one comparing constitutional rights to jury duty. That was you. You are now arguing against your own counter-analogy.

Guns acquired illegally, contrary to your mere assertions, are not always acquired through theft. Anyway, should I let all the "illegal immigrants" know they are in the clear? I don't see anyone with conservative leanings objecting to that terminology.

Seriously, your whole argument rests on this idea that people should be allowed to funnel guns to those who cannot or will not deal directly with the gun retailer. How can you not see how allowing this would be a problem? What is the point of background checks and other regulations on gun sales if there's no punishment for helping someone get around those regulations?

You keep insisting that straw purchases are not a significant factor in the influx of illegal guns, and it's bogus. I showed you pages ago it was bogus. It has not become any less bogus in the last couple of days. Here's an ATF study showing straw purchasing in one scenario accounting for roughly half of the illegal guns they traced. Here's an ATF agent insisting that straw purchases are the largest source of illegal gun trafficking.

And finally here is a study showing that regulation does deter straw purchases. The ATF is able to catch many of these "mildly clever and informed purchasers," and this deters many others. What is even left to argue?

The two ideas, voting and buying a gun, are not comparable i any way other than being rights. It is a dead argument.
My argument, since you mis-state it, is why should a legitimate gun buyer not be able to buy a gun for another legitimate gun buyer? We all agree the legitimate buyer should not be able to buy for the illegal buyer. But you have yet to explain in any coherent fashion what is gained by the legitimate buyer buying for another legitimate buyer.
Allowing it will not increase or decrease the number of "illegal" guns. Your spurious analogy to illegal immigrants is simply absurd. Illegal immigrants did something to become illegal. The gun did nothing.

 

[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",

WHAT ??? no "thank you's" from the "full gun rights" folks ! geeee, i am disappointed

 

[Paperman299]

the uncle went through his own background check in his home state

where he received the firearm as required by law

aside that in a general sense

there are three ways where it is perfectly legal to call yourself

the actual buyer and not making a false statement on 11A

AND the dealer would never have known to run a background check

- purchased as a gift

- resale of the firearm

- for raffle prizes

Do people still illegally acquire guns through straw purchase? Yes, but no law is 100% efficient. Many kinds of theft are also easy; pocketing a Kit-Kat at a convenience store is also difficult to stop (and though unlike in Abramski's case there is a private party being wronged directly here, the harm is negligible). Yet even theft that is very difficult to spot is still illegal.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Is there any reason why Abramski should be prevented from buying a gun for his uncle, using his uncle's money?

No. Such an act hurts no one, scares no one, threatens no one, violates no one's rights. He and his uncle both passed background checks.

So why is there a law on the books that would prevent it, if Abramski had obeyed it?

The 2nd amendment says that such a law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, does it not?

 

[RKMBrown]

Cool, the black market took a hit today. You know, most of the gun crimes committed in America are via illegally purchased firearms. I would advise you also to hold your tongue until you hold the Obama Administration accountable for Fast and Furious, were they not the ones who sold firearms to Drug Cartels? What an irony.

I agree with the decision too. I wouldn't give my firearm to any of my family members until they had a permit and were properly trained with it. And here you are acting like this is something major.

They require a permit to own a gun in GA?

And I agree with the ruling to a point, this case was clear that it was a straw purchase, because it was clear that he had the intent at the time of the purchase of giving it to his uncle. Now I see the DOJ using this ruling to go after others who purchased a firearm, kept it for a year or two and gifted it or sold it to another, and trying to call that a straw purchase.

He just needed to keep it for a couple seconds then sell it to his nephew, or admit he was buying it for his nephew at the start. The problem was they had evidence that was buying it for his nephew at the point of purchase, so he made a false statement when he said he was not buying it for someone else. Sort of like perjuring yourself, Clinton wasn't in trouble for having an extramarital affair, he got in trouble for lying about it.

 

[Paperman299]

The two ideas, voting and buying a gun, are not comparable i any way other than being rights. It is a dead argument.
My argument, since you mis-state it, is why should a legitimate gun buyer not be able to buy a gun for another legitimate gun buyer? We all agree the legitimate buyer should not be able to buy for the illegal buyer. But you have yet to explain in any coherent fashion what is gained by the legitimate buyer buying for another legitimate buyer.
Allowing it will not increase or decrease the number of "illegal" guns. Your spurious analogy to illegal immigrants is simply absurd. Illegal immigrants did something to become illegal. The gun did nothing.

It ain't a dead argument until you kill it, and you haven't come close. Your only "success" was in striking down your own counter-analogy.

I have answered this question plenty of times. You've ignored those responses in favor of protecting a proposed exception for a niche scenario. Here is the last way I am going to say it: I do not support loosening anti-straw purchasing laws when any law-abiding citizen should already have no trouble purchasing a gun for themselves directly. A clean paper-trail letting us know who bought what guns where contributes to the safety of our society overall while infringing on no-one' Constitutional rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

The two ideas, voting and buying a gun, are not comparable i any way other than being rights. It is a dead argument.
My argument, since you mis-state it, is why should a legitimate gun buyer not be able to buy a gun for another legitimate gun buyer? We all agree the legitimate buyer should not be able to buy for the illegal buyer. But you have yet to explain in any coherent fashion what is gained by the legitimate buyer buying for another legitimate buyer.
Allowing it will not increase or decrease the number of "illegal" guns. Your spurious analogy to illegal immigrants is simply absurd. Illegal immigrants did something to become illegal. The gun did nothing.

It ain't a dead argument until you kill it, and you haven't come close. Your only "success" was in striking down your own counter-analogy.

I have answered this question plenty of times. You've ignored those responses in favor of protecting a proposed exception for a niche scenario. Here is the last way I am going to say it: I do not support loosening anti-straw purchasing laws when any law-abiding citizen should already have no trouble purchasing a gun for themselves directly. A clean paper-trail letting us know who bought what guns where contributes to the safety of our society overall while infringing on no-one' Constitutional rights.

First they make the lists... then they use the lists to confiscate... Then come the ovens.

 

[The Rabbi]

The two ideas, voting and buying a gun, are not comparable i any way other than being rights. It is a dead argument.
My argument, since you mis-state it, is why should a legitimate gun buyer not be able to buy a gun for another legitimate gun buyer? We all agree the legitimate buyer should not be able to buy for the illegal buyer. But you have yet to explain in any coherent fashion what is gained by the legitimate buyer buying for another legitimate buyer.
Allowing it will not increase or decrease the number of "illegal" guns. Your spurious analogy to illegal immigrants is simply absurd. Illegal immigrants did something to become illegal. The gun did nothing.

It ain't a dead argument until you kill it, and you haven't come close. Your only "success" was in striking down your own counter-analogy.

I have answered this question plenty of times. You've ignored those responses in favor of protecting a proposed exception for a niche scenario. Here is the last way I am going to say it: I do not support loosening anti-straw purchasing laws when any law-abiding citizen should already have no trouble purchasing a gun for themselves directly. A clean paper-trail letting us know who bought what guns where contributes to the safety of our society overall while infringing on no-one' Constitutional rights.

Yes your analogy is dead. You cannot compare the ability to purchase a product to a right that is exercised by an action. Sorry.
Your answers are all fallacious comparisons to other things. Those have been dealt with.
Please explain how a clean paper trail contributes to anyone's safety. A person who buys a gun must pass a background check. What happens to the gun after that is anyone's guess. Many are stolen. Many are sold multiple times, sometimes to dubious end users.
But since the "clean paper trail" ends at the buyer at the gun store and what happens after that is unknown, the case of the person buying a gun for someone else also legal to own is not any different from the person getting the gun as a gift. What good is achieved by prohibited these straw purchases but allowing gifts and immediate resale? There is no functional difference. The only difference is intent.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cool, the black market took a hit today. You know, most of the gun crimes committed in America are via illegally purchased firearms. I would advise you also to hold your tongue until you hold the Obama Administration accountable for Fast and Furious, were they not the ones who sold firearms to Drug Cartels? What an irony.

I agree with the decision too. I wouldn't give my firearm to any of my family members until they had a permit and were properly trained with it. And here you are acting like this is something major.

They require a permit to own a gun in GA?

And I agree with the ruling to a point, this case was clear that it was a straw purchase, because it was clear that he had the intent at the time of the purchase of giving it to his uncle. Now I see the DOJ using this ruling to go after others who purchased a firearm, kept it for a year or two and gifted it or sold it to another, and trying to call that a straw purchase.

He just needed to keep it for a couple seconds then sell it to his nephew, or admit he was buying it for his nephew at the start. The problem was they had evidence that was buying it for his nephew at the point of purchase, so he made a false statement when he said he was not buying it for someone else. Sort of like perjuring yourself, Clinton wasn't in trouble for having an extramarital affair, he got in trouble for lying about it.

His argument was the perjury was not material because neither one of them was prohibited, and the purpose of the GCA and this provision was to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, which didnt apply here.
I have a lot of sympathy for that. In fact I agree with the other 4 justices that he was correct and the ATF overstepped its bounds in wriiting the regulation this way. You understand it is an ATF regulation, not the law, right?