< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: Update on SCOTUS case  (Read 2395 times)

Offline bullit

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 2143
Update on SCOTUS case
« on: June 16, 2014, 12:40:46 PM »
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?

Offline RedBird

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2014
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 28
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2014, 01:21:59 PM »
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
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 01:25:23 PM by RedBird »

Offline bullit

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 2143
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2014, 03:17:51 PM »
Opinion today.....wow that is timely.... thanks and interesting outcome

Offline gsd

  • 2013 NFOA Firearm Rights Champion award winner
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 1831
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2014, 09:37:56 PM »
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.
It is highly likely the above post may offend you. I'm fine with that.

Offline AWick

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2013
  • Location: West Millard
  • Posts: 350
  • Home is where your armory is.
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #4 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.

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

"Well-regulated" meant well equipped, trained and disciplined... not controlled with an iron fist.

Offline RedBird

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2014
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 28
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2014, 07:40:33 AM »
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.
YES^

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.

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.

Offline DenmanShooter

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2014
  • Location: Denman, Nebraska
  • Posts: 357
  • Fear No Evil
    • SolidRed
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2014, 07:54:15 AM »
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

 

The golf course is a willful and deliberate misuse of a perfectly good rifle range!      Jeff  Cooper

Offline AWick

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2013
  • Location: West Millard
  • Posts: 350
  • Home is where your armory is.
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2014, 08:48:12 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.
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
"Well-regulated" meant well equipped, trained and disciplined... not controlled with an iron fist.

Offline landon410

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 380
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2014, 10:22:26 AM »
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

Offline on the fritz

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 212
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2014, 01:32:54 PM »
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?

Offline Gunscribe

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Horsethief, NM
  • Posts: 359
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2014, 02:06:05 PM »
From my friend John Pierce, an attorney that specializes in 2A and NFA transfers;

http://johnpierceesq.com/?p=690

http://johnpierceesq.com/?p=680
Sidearms Training Academy
La Luz, NM

Offline farmerbob

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Location: S.W. Nebraska
  • Posts: 610
Re: Update on SCOTUS case
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2014, 10:38:29 PM »
Thanks for the info Gunscribe!

Helps clear a little of the fog up on the issue.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"-- George Washington