General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Update on SCOTUS case

(1/3) > >>

bullit:
I hope I am recalling the events of this case before SCOTUS correctly.....  They were to hear a case of a retired (?) LEO in PA who purchased a handgun using his discount, subsequently had his FFL ship to his relative in OH (maybe?) via that local FFL.  Said relative reimbursed his LEO family member.   A 4473 was completed by the receiving relative and firearm taken into possession.  The BATFE arrested the LEO and he was prosecuted and convicted due to answering "No" on question 11. a.  (e.g. "straw purchase").  IIRC, the LEO was having some possible other legal issues as well thus the reason the BATFE became involved. 

Again, I think I recall most of the details, BUT any update or status of the case?

RedBird:
SCOTUS ruled that the ban on straw purchases can be enforced even if the buyer can legally own or buy a firearm.

Court opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

Politico article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-straw-purchaser-gun-law-107892.html

bullit:
Opinion today.....wow that is timely.... thanks and interesting outcome

gsd:
I'm of two opinions on this. To me, one side smacks of the "father buys son a gun" and is now in a position to be arrested. The other side is that he did technically commit fraud on a federal form. Felony, IIRC.

AWick:
The problem is the Elana Kagen ruled that ANY transfer of a firearm to a second party is a felony and essentially made up an exemption for "gifts" to make the ruling not be laughable.  The exact language of the law that she ruled to mean any intended transfer in the future (is that a minute, a week, a year or a decade? because you might "knowingly" not be the complete end user) states "buyer/tranferee", no mention of gifts. so even as she claimed that if no money changes hands then all is well, that person would still be the tranferee; ergo illegal.

The intent of the law, and what the complete definition of a straw buyer used to mean, was buying a gun for a person who could not otherwise procure a gun legally.

Her ruling in effect was the exact same as being procecuted for say contributing alcohol to a minor if you buy a few cases of beer for some 30 y/o buddies while at the store and have them reimburse you later (in either beer or money).

Factors: they are legal to own and consume alcohol and it doesn't matter if they give out money before a beer run, after the beer run or are with you at checkout while you're buying beer. The clerk does their job, and then the onus is on you, THE ORIGINAL BUYER, to not knowingly sell or transfer to a restricted individual. Simple as that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page