General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Update on SCOTUS case

<< < (2/3) > >>

RedBird:

--- Quote from: AWick on June 16, 2014, 10:10:08 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---
YES^


--- Quote from: AWick on June 16, 2014, 10:10:08 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

This ruling definitely creates some gray areas concerning the transfer of a firearm between two parties but I'm not sure that it renders ANY transfer of a firearm to a second party illegal.

In her opinion, Justice Kagen writes:
"But no, straw arrangements are not a part of the secondary market, separate and apart from the dealer’s sale...The individual who sends a straw to a gun store to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer, in every way but the most formal; and that distinguishes such a person from one who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party."

Please correct me if I am wrong but that leads me to believe that the transfer of a firearm between two parties on the secondary market remains legal so long as the primary transferee of the firearm was not sent as a straw purchaser on behalf of another party.

DenmanShooter:
Form 4473 is unconstitutional in and of itself.  However, assuming it isn't, they actually got this one "right" in that he had accepted a check for it in advance.  Gifts usually aren't paid for by the recipient.  So he purchased it with intent of selling it.  He lied on a federal form.  OMG, that is worse than murder to our overlords.

Although in my mind all he did was take advantage of his discount for a relative so it is a store policy problem not a legal one.   

Dumb dumb dumb.  If the check had said it was for dinner and a movie, he would have been fine.

I don't agree with the law.  But according to the law he broke it.

We need to change the law.  Actually we need to do away with ALL gun laws, disband the ATF and once again be the land of the free.

A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything away. -- Thomas Jefferson

 

AWick:

--- Quote from: RedBird on June 17, 2014, 07:40:33 AM ---YES^

This ruling definitely creates some gray areas concerning the transfer of a firearm between two parties but I'm not sure that it renders ANY transfer of a firearm to a second party illegal.

In her opinion, Justice Kagen writes:
"But no, straw arrangements are not a part of the secondary market, separate and apart from the dealer’s sale...The individual who sends a straw to a gun store to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer, in every way but the most formal; and that distinguishes such a person from one who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party."

Please correct me if I am wrong but that leads me to believe that the transfer of a firearm between two parties on the secondary market remains legal so long as the primary transferee of the firearm was not sent as a straw purchaser on behalf of another party.

--- End quote ---
The secondary market is now going to be drastically more scrutinized with this ruling. A person is more likely now to be charged with "straw purchasing" and you'll have to go to court to say "but, but, but, it was buyer's remorse!" and pray that it stands.

My main objection is that once she ruled with the government, she then created the gift exemption out of thin air. Her entire reasoning that established that he was guilty was that he knowingly wasn't the intended buyer/tranferee. The federal code makes no such exemption under her new interpretation of the law. There is no exemption if money doesn't change hands,  that's why it always refers to both "buyer & tranferee".

She considered the two transactions to be the same. So now how do you buy a handgun as a gift for your 19 y/o son for his birthday? The 19 y/o is now legal to own the gun, but not legal to buy it...

Who usually gets the shaft when there is gray area? John & Jane Q. Public

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

landon410:
grey areas should be legally handled via "contra proferentem"

or against the draftee, if the judge wrote the law (we know judges cant write law but whatever)

any ambiguity in a contract, the law SHOULD side with the party that did NOT write the contract, ie John Q Public

on the fritz:
So at what age can someone gift a long gun and/or a hand gun to someone? 

Does the age ever change when it is a family member of some kind?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page