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

[RKMBrown]

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?

I'm not familiar with this particular case. I may read it if it sounds interesting. So far it sounds like a small nit. Yes they might have decided that the ATF went beyond the bounds of the act of congress, but as is typical for this court, they are letting congress administrate itself. If congress wants to give power to the ATF and congress does not care ... then the court evidently doesn't want to overrule congress and do their job for them.

While the CFR is not criminal law it is administrative law. Further congress ceded to the ATF the job of writing this particular section of the CFR. Thus these so called rules are given the force of law. Further we pay the ATF to enforce it.

In short... elections have consequences. This is yet another reason to repeal the 17th amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

I'm not familiar with this particular case. I may read it if it sounds interesting. So far it sounds like a small nit. Yes they might have decided that the ATF went beyond the bounds of the act of congress, but as is typical for this court, they are letting congress administrate itself. If congress wants to give power to the ATF and congress does not care ... then the court evidently doesn't want to overrule congress and do their job for them.

While the CFR is not criminal law it is administrative law. Further congress ceded to the ATF the job of writing this particular section of the CFR. Thus these so called rules are given the force of law. Further we pay the ATF to enforce it.

In short... elections have consequences. This is yet another reason to repeal the 17th amendment.

ATF is under the Justice Department and is a part of the executive branch, not Congress.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

I'm not familiar with this particular case. I may read it if it sounds interesting. So far it sounds like a small nit. Yes they might have decided that the ATF went beyond the bounds of the act of congress, but as is typical for this court, they are letting congress administrate itself. If congress wants to give power to the ATF and congress does not care ... then the court evidently doesn't want to overrule congress and do their job for them.

While the CFR is not criminal law it is administrative law. Further congress ceded to the ATF the job of writing this particular section of the CFR. Thus these so called rules are given the force of law. Further we pay the ATF to enforce it.

In short... elections have consequences. This is yet another reason to repeal the 17th amendment.

ATF is under the Justice Department and is a part of the executive branch, not Congress.

Congress writes legislation called acts... The president signs them. When congress writes legislation it may or may not assign various government organizations to write the code for the legislation (aka. code of federal regulations (CFR)). In this case congress wrote the legislation that led to the rule in the CFR in question, and congress assigned the writing of the rule and enforcement to the ATF.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not familiar with this particular case. I may read it if it sounds interesting. So far it sounds like a small nit. Yes they might have decided that the ATF went beyond the bounds of the act of congress, but as is typical for this court, they are letting congress administrate itself. If congress wants to give power to the ATF and congress does not care ... then the court evidently doesn't want to overrule congress and do their job for them.

While the CFR is not criminal law it is administrative law. Further congress ceded to the ATF the job of writing this particular section of the CFR. Thus these so called rules are given the force of law. Further we pay the ATF to enforce it.

In short... elections have consequences. This is yet another reason to repeal the 17th amendment.

ATF is under the Justice Department and is a part of the executive branch, not Congress.

Congress writes legislation called acts... The president signs them. When congress writes legislation it may or may not assign various government organizations to write the code for the legislation (aka. code of federal regulations (CFR)). In this case congress wrote the legislation that led to the rule in the CFR in question, and congress assigned the writing of the rule and enforcement to the ATF.

No, that's not how it works. But whatever.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

How?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A clean paper-trail letting us know who bought what guns where contributes to the safety of our society overall....

Your position is unsupportable.

 

[RKMBrown]

ATF is under the Justice Department and is a part of the executive branch, not Congress.

Congress writes legislation called acts... The president signs them. When congress writes legislation it may or may not assign various government organizations to write the code for the legislation (aka. code of federal regulations (CFR)). In this case congress wrote the legislation that led to the rule in the CFR in question, and congress assigned the writing of the rule and enforcement to the ATF.

No, that's not how it works. But whatever.

Feel free to provide a correct explanation.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Do people still illegally acquire guns through straw purchase?

- purchased as a gift

- resale of the firearm

- for raffle prizes[/B]

all three above are legal not illegal

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

actually the nephew was buying it for the uncle

admitting it on 11a disqualifies the purchase

it is still legal to pen yes that you are the buyer /transferee on 11a

knowing full well that you are getting it for someone else

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

actually the nephew was buying it for the uncle

admitting it on 11a disqualifies the purchase

it is still legal to pen yes that you are the buyer /transferee on 11a

knowing full well that you are getting it for someone else

No, his argument was that it was not material to the transaction since no criminal intent was involved. 4 justices bought the argument, as I do as well.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

actually the nephew was buying it for the uncle

admitting it on 11a disqualifies the purchase

it is still legal to pen yes that you are the buyer /transferee on 11a

knowing full well that you are getting it for someone else

No, his argument was that it was not material to the transaction since no criminal intent was involved. 4 justices bought the argument, as I do as well.

yes i agree with that the nephew was the actual buyer

and that kagans chain of ownership claim is bogus

 

[The Rabbi]

actually the nephew was buying it for the uncle

admitting it on 11a disqualifies the purchase

it is still legal to pen yes that you are the buyer /transferee on 11a

knowing full well that you are getting it for someone else

No, his argument was that it was not material to the transaction since no criminal intent was involved. 4 justices bought the argument, as I do as well.

yes i agree with that the nephew was the actual buyer

and that kagans chain of ownership claim is bogus

No, the uncle was the actual buyer. That's clear. I just dont think it makes a difference.

 

[martybegan]

No, his argument was that it was not material to the transaction since no criminal intent was involved. 4 justices bought the argument, as I do as well.

yes i agree with that the nephew was the actual buyer

and that kagans chain of ownership claim is bogus

No, the uncle was the actual buyer. That's clear. I just dont think it makes a difference.

A quick question. Does anyone know if the conviction was a felony conviction, thus removing the nephews right to bear arms?

 

[The Rabbi]

yes i agree with that the nephew was the actual buyer

and that kagans chain of ownership claim is bogus

No, the uncle was the actual buyer. That's clear. I just dont think it makes a difference.

A quick question. Does anyone know if the conviction was a felony conviction, thus removing the nephews right to bear arms?

It would have been. Whether they plea bargained to something else I dont know.

 

[martybegan]

No, the uncle was the actual buyer. That's clear. I just dont think it makes a difference.

A quick question. Does anyone know if the conviction was a felony conviction, thus removing the nephews right to bear arms?

It would have been. Whether they plea bargained to something else I dont know.

Interesting. of course since the guy is a retried cop, I'm sure his buddies in the department would be able to pull a few strings to get things sorted out.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No, his argument was that it was not material to the transaction since no criminal intent was involved. 4 justices bought the argument, as I do as well.

yes i agree with that the nephew was the actual buyer

and that kagans chain of ownership claim is bogus

No, the uncle was the actual buyer. That's clear. I just dont think it makes a difference.

the more that i have read the opinion i dont either

 

[The Rabbi]

A quick question. Does anyone know if the conviction was a felony conviction, thus removing the nephews right to bear arms?

It would have been. Whether they plea bargained to something else I dont know.

Interesting. of course since the guy is a retried cop, I'm sure his buddies in the department would be able to pull a few strings to get things sorted out.

He was not retired. He was pretty much forced to leave. The subtext is the guy is no white knight. But that doesnt matter. He also used his expired PD credentials to get the LE discount on the gun.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

You won't acknowledge that straw purchases are one of the most common ways unlicensed individuals get guns, despite the evidence I've linked (who we catch and prosecute, despite these loopholes you keep bringing up). You'd rather drop-kick your own example and pretend you didn't rather than admit having a gun and having a vote are both Constitutional rights. And you've brought nothing but mere assertions against the studies and reports I've shown you.

At this point, it's getting farcical. And I see no reason to go on arguing with someone who won't acknowledge the evidence that's placed directly in front of him. Sorry.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You won't acknowledge that straw purchases are one of the most common ways unlicensed individuals get guns, despite the evidence I've linked (who we catch and prosecute, despite these loopholes you keep bringing up). You'd rather drop-kick your own example and pretend you didn't rather than admit having a gun and having a vote are both Constitutional rights. And you've brought nothing but mere assertions against the studies and reports I've shown you.

At this point, it's getting farcical. And I see no reason to go on arguing with someone who won't acknowledge the evidence that's placed directly in front of him. Sorry.

Translation: I cannot defend my pathetic point of view.
I agree. IT is pretty lame trying to compare purchasing a consumer item to something like voting or jury duty.
After many pages you cannot explain why one lawful person buying an item for another lawful person represents a law enforcement problem. And it isn't just my points. Others have challenged many of your statements and the result is always silence.
Good luck.

 

[Paperman299]

A clean paper-trail letting us know who bought what guns where contributes to the safety of our society overall....

Your position is unsupportable.

I am a little surprised this is the line ruffling feathers. I mean, how often does a paper trail not somehow contribute to society overall? If not for safety directly, then in other ways. How many people owned a car before you, who fucked up at work...unless it was you...

Some points to consider in favor of this "clean paper trail" in this case:

1) The transferee could be mistaken, or could be lied to, about the legality of the actual buyer. The transferee cannot always know, for instance, that the other person will pass a background check. You're essentially changing whose responsibility it is to "clear" the actual buyer. But of these three parties, only the gun dealer is capable of performing the background check!

2) When the police find a discarded weapon in relation to a crime, they need to trace it to the owner. If a suspect claims he does not own a weapon linked to a crime, the police need to be able to trace it to the owner. If perhaps police know, thanks to forensics, the kind of weapon used in a crime and have a list of suspects, they can check with local gun dealers and speed up their investigation. There are many scenarios where that paper trail will be a valuable tool to police. Now you may say criminals can get around these measures, but criminals make mistakes. And whether or not the person was previously allowed to own a firearm shouldn't afford him a shield in a criminal investigation.

3) If straw purchases on the part of dual parties who could both legally own guns was A-OK, why wouldn't those intentionally transferring weapons to those who couldn't legally own guns simply say they didn't know? Are we prosecuting many of the people who fucked up in my first point, or are we releasing many of those who conscientiously broke the law here?

4) Is there anyone who doubts that the #1 reason for straw purchases is to get around gun laws? Sure, there are loopholes, but nets don't have to catch every fish. I repeat: criminals make mistakes.

I don't know what else to say, guys. We know the law is catching crooks funneling guns to criminals. I just don't see how changing the language of the law won't make it more difficult for the ATF to do its job, and licensed gun owners can buy what they want either way.