Court ruling on straw purchases.

http://ift.tt/1patjL9

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates

Quote:

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction of a man who bought a handgun but broke the law by not disclosing his intent to resell it to a relative. The court ruled 5-4 in the "straw" purchase case against Bruce Abramski, a former police officer who told a Virginia gun dealer in 2009 that he was the "actual buyer" of the Glock weapon. He then sold it to his uncle in Pennsylvania for $400. The Obama administration said those who purchase from licensed dealers must follow the letter and spirit of the law to ensure accurate record-keeping and to make it easier to trace the weapon. Gun rights advocates call Abramski a victim of vast government overreach, unfairly lumped into the same category as those who would buy weapons for criminals or for smuggling.

As far as I know Abramski was found to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922 - Unlawful acts.

http://ift.tt/1patmqj

Quote:

922. Unlawful acts (a) It shall be unlawful— (1) for any person— (6) ..... knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

It seems as though the man screwed up twice; lying, then selling the gun. As far as I know he would have not gotten in any trouble if he had gifted the gun to his dad instead of selling it. In the end we have another "dangerous ex-cop" who won't be doing this again.



Back in 2002 some people made a fuss about Sarah Brady buying a rifle to give to her son. Since her son was not a prohibited person no one important really cared.



Ranb

via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1i2Oj7L