SCOTUS Upholds ATF’s Straw Purchase Prohibition

straw

Steve Says: Many thanks to Spencer, a law student, for contributing this well researched guest post. This is a legal post, not a political post.

Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case Abramski v. United Statesagainst Abramski in a 5–4 decision split along party lines. Bruce Abramski had purchased a blue-label Glock using his old police credentials to acquire the gun at a discount on behalf of his uncle, who lived in another state. After acquiring the gun, Abramski properly transferred the gun to his uncle at an FFL in his uncle’s home state.

In deciding against Petitioner Abramski, the Court held that when Abramski answered yes to Question 11.a on the 4473 (the actual buyer question), he made a false statement with respect to a fact material to the lawfulness of the disposition, which violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). The Court also held that his misrepresentation concerned information required to be kept by the GCA, which violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A).

Reasoning

The Court held that all the provisions relating to acquisition of firearms from dealers that refer to “person” or “transferee” actually refer to the person “always meant to get the firearm” and not the person at the counter (Abramski, pp 13–14). Therefore, the information of who is to ultimately get the firearm is material to the transaction, and Abramski’s misrepresentation therefore violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) (Abramski, p 19). The Court glossed over the dissent’s recognition that “no provision of the Act prohibits one person who is eligible to receive and possess firearms (e.g. Abramski) from buying a gun for another person who is eligible to receive and possess firearms (e.g. Abramski’s uncle), even at the other’s request and with the other’s money” (Abramski,Scalia, J., dissenting, p 2).

Abramski also argued that his false statement was not material because his uncle was not a prohibited person. But under the new interpretation that the statute actually refers to the person always meant to get the firearm, the Court held that Abramski’s argument fails because the sale would not have complied with § 922(c) absentee purchase restrictions, and so his false statement was still material (Abramski, pp 19–20). Notably, the Court stated that the ATF’s previous view that identity of the true buyer is material only if the true buyer is prohibited is irrelevant because criminal laws are for courts to construe (Abramski, p 21). The ATF’s opinion simply doesn’t matter.

Finally, because the regulations (27 C.F.R. 478) require dealers to keep their form 4473s, any information in the 4473 is information “required by [Chapter 44]” to be kept, and therefore misrepresentations on a 4473 violate 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). Again, the Court brushes aside the dissent’s point that neither Chapter 44 nor the regulations actually require keeping any information as to “true buyers” (Abramski, Scalia, J., dissenting, pp 13–14).

Implications

The Court has implicitly granted the ATF enormous power when it comes to what it can require of dealers and transferees. The ATF can include any information in the 4473 and magically, the information is now required to be kept such that misrepresentations violate 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). I seriously doubt that even this liberal majority would allow the ATF to include a question such as “What is your favorite color?” since it is wholly irrelevant, but the ATF certainly could include other questions or change the actual buyer exceptions.

At the same time, the Court has diminished the ATF’s power by stating that the ATF’s interpretation doesn’t matter. Allen Thompson at Prince Law notes

What is interesting about the decision, however, is that it expressly disavows any deference to ATF’s interpretations of criminal statutes (although it conveniently upholds ATF’s current, court-favored interpretation). Slip op. at 21. The Court emphatically declined to give any deference to ATF’s interpretation of the statutes precisely because it is a criminal statute, codified in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (reserved for criminal statutes). While the Court’s apparent reason for disavowing any reliance on ATF’s interpretation was ostensibly to discredit Abramski’s argument that, at one point, ATF actually took exactly the same petition Abramski was proposing, it may well have opened quite a large door for firearms proponents. For example, the terms “firearm,” “silencer,” and “machine gun” are all defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921, part of the Criminal Code. Did the Court just invalidate all of ATF’s interpretations regarding what constitutes a firearm, silencer, or machine gun for purposes of criminal prosecutions?

This is not merely academic, as anyone who has had the misfortune of engaging a government agency in a legal battle knows that the courts typically defer to the agency on questions of interpretation of definitions and statutes. Now, however, a powerful argument can be made under Abramski that ATF’s determinations are to be given no deference at all, as many of the firearms regulations come under the Criminal Code (the rest come under the Tax Code). By way of example, ATF’s determination that Sig’s MPX-C muzzle brake is actually a silencer should no longer be given any deference, as the definition of “silencer” falls under the Criminal Code.

The Court’s analysis of materiality also raises some perplexing questions. The 4473 actual buyer requirement is not created anywhere in statute or regulation. The requirement and explanation is entirely a creature of the 4473. The 4473 asks question 11.a and provides instructions defining “Actual Buyer.”

1

2

Notice that question 11.a explains that you are not an actual buyer if you are someone who is acquiring a firearm on behalf of another, and that it prohibits transfers to people who are not actual buyers. At the same time, in the instructions the ATF has created several exceptions to the actual buyer requirement (again, nowhere to be found in statute or regulation). How do these exceptions (or loopholes if you will), not contravene the purpose of § 922(a)(6)? Prohibited persons could easily make use of these exceptions in straw purchase scenarios.

Also interesting is that an agent acting on behalf of a corporation should fill out Section A of the 4473 with his own information. Section A includes question 11.a, the actual buyer question.

3

Under the ATF’s definition, this officer acting on behalf of the corporation is not the actual buyer. Should the officer answer “no” to question 11.a? If so, the transfer is prohibited as explained by the actual buyer question and instructions. But if the officer answers “yes” to question 11.a, the officer is committing a violation of § 922(a)(6) since the officer is not the actual buyer. There is no exception in the 4473 for agents who are not actual buyers that buy on behalf of entities.

Could a dealer still transfer someone who answers “no” to question 11.a? Only the 4473 prohibits the transaction, there is no actual statute or regulation prohibiting such a transfer as the dissent in Abramski noted. However, under the majority’s view, § 922(c) seems to catch this scenario. But § 922(c) only applies to sales to persons not present, that is, it only contemplates two parties involved in the transaction, not three. Again, a corporate buyer will not be present, so should all corporate purchases proceed under § 922(c)? And what about someone who is not purchasing the firearm from the FFL (such as someone who bought from another dealer online, but only transfers at the receiving dealer).

Finally, it is interesting to note that in November of 2012, the ATF refused to answer an FFL’s questions, one of which involved a straw purchase on behalf of a corporation.



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Stonia

    My head hurts…

    • Yea pretty much means we’re screwed if we buy a gift gun.

      • Cymond

        The ATF’s 4473 PDF is copy-paste protected, but here’s a screen capture image. This is from the April 2012 revision here: http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

        • TFB Reader

          Great response, except for “The instructions for 11a explicitly state that you are the actual buyer
          if the purchase is genuinely a gift. No, it doesn’t make sense, but
          there it is.” The receiver of ANY true gift (car, shirt or whatever) doesn’t buy it, unless the gift is money and they buy something with it. For everything except money, the giver buys the item and owns it until they give it away. The giver will always be the original buyer and will be the owner of the item until then.

          • Cymond

            I really need to stop reading & commenting late at night. I was thinking “harder not smarter” again. You’re right, in a gift situation, the person standing at the counter is the actual BUYER even though he isn’t the actual intended owner in the end. In this case, Abramski was verifiably acting on behalf of a third party.

            It’s still silly that the difference between a legal and illegal transaction is whether or not your buddy pays you back for it.

          • LouGots

            You’re still not getting it. Not only are bona fide gifts legal, but also subsequent private sales are legal., (at far as federal law goes).

            Suppose to go into the FFL shop and bu that SIG for yourself. On the way home, you change your mind, maybe it’s too heavy, or whatever, so you sell it to somebody at the range, maybe a half-hour after you bought.

            NOT A PROBLEM. That is still legal, as far as federal law goes.

            Now, there IS a problem with “whether or not your buddy pays you back for it.” “Back” inplies that you had a previous contract with your buddy to buy the gun for him and you were advancing the purchase money. No good. You are making the buy FOR him, on credit.

            Abramski is a fun case for kicking around these basic property law concepts. but it really doesn’t do much, one way or another. We can still give guns away, or re-sell them.

          • Bubba

            Hey, at what point in time will you realize that it doesn’t matter what the word definition is to the scoundrels one calls “government” ? The .gov has either ignored or redefined legal terms and definitions to justify and substantiate their arguments to impose tyranny on the population.

            Hell, look at the criminal in the West Wing….obama. SoB does NOT meet constitutional criteria to be POTUS. But there he sits, the US Constitution and supporting case law ignored. But hey, go out there and sing the National Anthem. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

          • floppyscience

            What constitutional criteria does Obama not meet for being POTUS?

          • gunslinger

            I bet its because he was born in Kenya to aliens from pluto or something.

            Birther, right?

          • floppyscience

            Well yeah of course, everyone knows that, I thought it was something else.

          • Blake

            please don’t feed the trolls 🙂

          • floppyscience

            My bad

          • Blake

            No worries man, I know it’s hard to hold your tongue in the face of ignorance…

          • supergun

            Good post.

          • LouGots

            Yep. That’s it. You buy a thing for yourself, and then you give it away later, or not. This makes absolutely perfect sense.

            The question on the 4473 refers to the act of buying, not to the gun itself. You are doing the buying FOR yourself. Being able to give a thing away is one of the attributes of ownership. This is VERY basic, and even an Affirmative Action hack like Kagan got it right.

          • gunslinger

            except when the gun you buy is a glock 19. and that same glock 19 gets “transfered” to your uncle the next day (timeframe?) and when it is found that last week said uncle gave you a check for $$ that covered the apparent cost of the glock 19, and had “for Glock 19” in the memo field.

            you can’t gift someone a thing that they had bought.

            now if there wasn’t a check that specifically said G19 on it. i think this would be different.

          • LouGots

            Right again.

            Abramski is a very simple case. There had been a contract of agency. Open and shut. The case would make a good lesson plan in an undergraduate Business Law course.

        • LouGots

          It makes perfect sense in light of basic, basic principles of personal property and agency. These issues are embarrassingly simple — Geico Insurance easy. This is material which would be covered in the first week of undergraduate Business Law or taught by a good high school Social Studies teacher.

          OF COURSE we may buy guns as presents for others, power of donation being one of the attributes of ownership. When you buy that necktie as a present for Uncle John, you are buying it on behalf of yourself. If, however, Uncle John handed you a ten-spot and asked you to pick up the tie for him, you would be buying it on behalf of you uncle. It Federal law had you fill out a form at the haberdashery, you could not then truthfully say that you were the actual buyer of the necktie. Geico Insurance easy. What we cannot do is to accept orders and payments from others, and do the buying for them. The word “for,” you see, refers to the act of buying, not to the gun itself.

          The case if befuddling a lot of people because they mistakenly look at the FFL dealer record system as a REGISTRY, which it most definitely is not. It is a dealer record . Period. If you take delivery of a gun for a corporation, it is not “registered” to you. It is not “registered” to anyone at the federal level, because there is no federal registry. Indeed, federal law forbids such a registry.

      • Nicholas C

        That is what i interpreted it. What if you buy a gun from a store that refuses to ship out of state to an FFL? So you buy the gun, then use a different FFL to transfer it out of state to a friend? That friend then receives the gun legally and goes thru the transfer process in his home state?

        • JD

          As long as money didn’t change hands prior to the original purchase it would be pass the legal test here

      • ALTAC6

        Not what it means at all. Purchasing a gun for a non-prohibited person is not illegal, so obviously Abramski cannot have been convicted of that.

        Lying on a federal form IS illegal, and that is what he was caught doing.

        The way the laws regarding the 4473s are written, straw purchases are prohibited not by an actual law making it a crime, but by the fact it is impossible to perform a straw purchase without lying on the form.

        If at one time the ATF had the opinion that buying a gun for a non-prohibited person was legal, well that was because it IS legal. That opinion still doesn’t address the fact that lying on the form is illegal, and that’s precisely why that was (correctly) deemed irrelevant to this case.

        • gunslinger

          so if the uncle didn’t send the check with G19payment. didn’t send it early, and the gun wasn’t transfered on the same day (was it?) this could have been avoided in that “in the legal sense” the guy bought the gun himself, then decided to gift it to his relative? they maybe a few days later (birthday, christmas, ect) the “buyer” got an extra bit of cash as the holiday gift?

          • ALTAC6

            As ridiculous as that sounds, yes that’s exactly right. In terms of events, in as layman as I can make it (and I am in no way claiming to be fluent in legalese)…

            Abramski received a check that clearly said ‘for Glock 19’, then purchased the gun. This is not illegal. In the PROCESS of purchasing the gun, however, he claimed to be the actual buyer on the form 4473, which was a lie. THIS is illegal.

            Now, the ATF writes the forms, and technically they can put whatever questions they want to put. They could actually put the question ‘what is your favorite color’ on the 4473, and if you LIE to that question, you’ve STILL committed a crime, by lying on a federal form.

            BUT, you can contest that in court, using the defense that the question was not relevant to the law that the form was meant to apply to. So you lie on the ‘what is your favorite color’ question, get caught, now your defense in court is that your favorite color has nothing to do with the Gun Control Act… and in this case you would definitely win.

            Abramski tried that same defense, that the question of whether he was the actual buyer had nothing to do with the law that the form was supposed to be written in accordance to. The court ruled that this was not true, and that a record of the actual buyer from an FFL /IS/ within the scope of the GCA, and therefore there is no defense for lying on the form.

            They did NOT rule that you cannot buy a gift gun, because the form clearly says you ARE the buyer if you are buying a gift gun, and therefore you are not lying on the question if you answer it from that standpoint.

            All in all, this is a 100% status quo ruling from where I’m looking at it.

          • LouGots

            You got it. 100% simple. The case is getting press because it is being played as a horrible loss for the NRA and everything like that. t

          • LouGots

            Revisiting this a few days later: you can buy a gun intending to make a bona fide gift of it later, AND you can buy it intending to keep it, but change your mind later and re-sell it. In both of these instances, you can truthfully declare that you are buying it for yourself at the time you originally bought it.

            The reason Abramski is a nothing case, and does not affect the RKBA one way or another is what many of the commenters here are pointing out. If there is not a paper trail making out a contract of agency, there is no way to prove a straw purchase case involving a single incident of gift or re-sale.

            Remember: Abramski was a piggy consolation prize prosecution. They couldn’t get him for the bank robberies they liked him for, so they scoured every scrap of information left over from their failed investigation to come up with this technically false official statement. .

          • gunslinger

            had there not been a memo for G19 i doubt this would have gone. or been harder to prove. now he gets a check for the same price as the gun but memo is for b-day gift or loan repayment or something. it may be harder to prove, even after the transfer. (is that enough of a reasonable doubt?)

        • Bubba

          “The way the laws regarding the 4473s are written….” I beg to differ with your remark. The ATF and their 4473s are not “law” in the legal sense. They are regulations created by unelected traitors to the US Constitution. Of course these regulations have the power of “law”. Just remember….only the US Congress can create federal laws. Anything NOT specifically originating in Congress, introduced by Congress and subsequently signed by a legitimate, sitting POTUS is NOT a law. It is a regulation.

          It amazes me how so many folks have succumbed to the propaganda of the .gov’s tyranny. Then again, how many .gov schools are teaching the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution ?

          • FourString

            All schools still reach the constitution. Stop generalizing and trashing the government and schools wholesale. Jesus.

        • Blake

          “Lying on a federal form IS illegal, and that is what he was caught doing.”

          Exactly. This is why immigration forms have a ton of crazy questions on them – so you can be busted for lying on the form if you don’t answer it truthfully. Frank Zappa had good fun recording a parody reading of one too…

      • TFB Reader

        No. The other responses cover the legal issues, but a simple question: How can something be a “gift” to someone who reimburses the giver, or worse, has paid for it in advance? Cymond lays out the procedure for true gifts. Awkward but doable.

      • Bp. David

        Good Grief! Just buy the thing at a gun show with no paperwork and give or sell it in a private sale to whomever the H3LL you want, also with no paperwork! It’s not rocket surgery, people.

        • Bubba

          Hey smart guy Bp. David….you write just like one of the obama trolls looking to incite arguments against firearms ownership, ala your imbecilic gun show remark.

          Gun shows have many FFL vendors. Those folks sell one a firearm using both fedgov and stategov legal procedures. I.E., you go thru the same 4473 procedure, etc., as though you were at a gun store.

          So, if you believe one can walk into the gun show of their choice and find any weapon of their choosing being sold by a private citizen, you’re either a fool or an obama troll.

          So, when you respond like the jackass you are, how’s about explaining WTF “rocket surgery” is ?

          • FourString

            And “Obama trolls” is clearly not blatantly inflammatory. Whatever happened to no politics? You’re just asking for your comments to be deleted dude.

      • LouGots

        No. It means the opposite. The opinion of the Court, and the ATF position as per the instructions for Form 4473 expressly state that one may buy a gun intending to make a later bona fide gift of it to another.

        What you cannot do is enter into a contract of agency to buy a gun on behalf of another, which is what the defendant in Abramski had done. As long as your intended donee is not a Prohibited Person, and as long the gift complies with state law, it’s all good.

        This case is very unremarkable, one way or the other, and has no bearing on what we do when we buy guns as presents for others..

    • KestrelBike

      Thank you for saying it. I did like the part about the ruling basically saying the ATF is not the end-all-be-all for definitions. Per the post’s example, I’d like to see Sig for after them to get their muzzle break declared legal for civilian sale.

      • sauerquint

        Apparently the problem with the gift gun only occurs if you do the FFL transfer. If you just give it to them, or even if you accept money, bringing the FFL into it is where the trouble lies.

  • Julio

    Law of unintended consequences? If the plaintiff hadn’t made a misleading statement to save his uncle a few bucks -a foolish act, in my opinion-, a great deal of time and (public) expenditure would have been saved, and fewer people would have been left scratching their heads as a result.

    • An even greater deal of time, public expenditure and common sense would be both saved and restored if we dissolved the ATF on the grounds that its mere existence is unconstitutional. Which I am sure you will agree it is.

      • Julio

        Absolutely. Do everything in your power to fix stupid laws (and gun laws are stupider than most)…, but observe them to the best of your ability until they are fixed.

  • John

    Two quick questions:
    1. How much is Glock’s police discount?
    2. Did Abramski fraud with respect to the Glock police program?

    • gunslinger

      1> no clue
      2> possibly. but that doesn’t seem to be the case at hand. this is merely the “straw purchase” for his relative.

    • Cleanrumble

      1. I just bought a 4th gen. Glock 26 in May for $425

    • JD

      John I was wondering the same thing. Seems like the prosecutor couldn’t go after him for impersonating a police officer for some reason. Since the robbery charges were a no go they were determined to make something stick. I think that might be drifting toward the political end of the pool though. Lol

  • Pete Sheppard

    The real ‘strawman’ is the game played around the ‘actual’ purchaser. The person who pays the money and took the gun is the ‘actual purchaser’. The rest is word manipulation. <_<

  • Richard Allen

    What I have never got about this case is why the second FFL (the one in PA), did not short circuit the whole case. Abramski did not transfer the gun to his uncle under the ATF process, he transferred it to the PA FFL who transferred it to his uncle. How do you answer the question on the 4473 when the intended recipient is another FFL?

    And as a followup to the corporate agent issue. How does a police firearms purchasing agent (who is not an FFL) buying a block of guns to transfer to officers in his department answer the question? Assume the guns are purchased by the officers and do not remain the property of the department.

    In both cases, the proper answer would appear to be No* (with explanation), in which case the FFL would cancel the sale.

    • Geodkyt

      Dealers don’t fill out 4473s when receiving firearms in a business transaction. 4473 are “end user” forms (to use an international shipping term).

      The FFL to FFL transfer would be exactly the same as the FFL’s normal distributer drop shipping guns directly to the gun store. (They still go through the “bound book”.)

      • Sulaco

        Ya I think that’s right, the dept would order a block of glocks and as long as the dept had the proper paperwork on file with Glock USA they would show up at property unit. It was up to us to account for them after Glock shipped.

    • Sulaco

      I am not sure that LE has to answer the 4473 questions, they don’t, at least for every gun. When I was working property shipments of guns purchased under the depts.., license would arrive and we would inventory them and add them to the “to be issued” safe. As the officer “buying” the guns is the legally designated person to do so, like a lawyer or person with power of attorney “is” that person in law so if the question is asked of him at some point the answer would legally be “yes”.

  • Burst

    I can’t help but think the entire case (and legal shuffle) is unneeded.

    Abramski bought the gun for another because of his LEO discount. That is fraud, and it is already illegal. It should be immaterial whether it was a gun, a kitten, or a can of soup.

    • Yellow Devil

      But, I like my guns with my kitten and soup.

  • JD

    Just wanted to chime in a bit. The first reports I found about this decision were completely worthless. So I found the decision and read it for myself. The majority explicitly upholds gifts and sets it aside as immaterial to the case. I was worried the decision was saying I could be a felon for buying my son his first rifle. A few reports I had read made it seem as if that could be the case- simply bad reporting (on the internet even, go figure)
    The thing I find most interesting in the majority Kagan goes on and on about the intent of the law is to determine who will ultimately receive the weapon that it could be traced if used in a crime. She never mentions the pistol was transferred via a ffl which indeed accomplishes this. The dissent and the defendant do not argue on those grounds either. Not specifically anyway which is what this ruling is- very specific. The example on the form (being given money by another person to buy a gun on their behalf) is exactly what went down and there was proof. Don’t buy firearm for people using their money- got it. There are other questions brought to light here that need to be corrected by congress. Trusts and procurement depts seem to be at risk.

  • Bp. David

    ATF–Anti-American Tyranist Federales. Sorta like the KGB and the SS Brownshirts.

  • Rusty Shackleford

    I don’t understand it. He WAS the actual buyer, he simply chose to resell the Glock. Kind of like when you change your name, the legal form states something to the effect of “you have no current plans to change your name again in the near future” you can still legally change your name again.

  • Bubba

    Here’s a thought for all you “law & order” types arguing this government lawyer decision (SCOTUS scoundrels) endorsing the tyranny of fedgov using their ATF stooges….how about you guys tell your fedgov reps and senators to introduce legislation to ABOLISH ATF ? What do all you patriots (I use the word loosely) think of that ?

    What part of “….shall not be infringed” do you folks not understand ?

  • Aaron E

    Preventing lawful people from buying firearms for prohibited persons is necessary so every felon’s girlfriend doesn’t keep buying them new guns. But this case is just dumb. Lawful citizen buys gun for lawful citizen. If my buddy gives me money so I can buy his beer while he pumps gas, I’m still the “buyer” at the register. This is typical Federal red tape that just mucks everything up in a never-ending and confusing maze of rules.

    They can spend a whole lot of money and resources prosecuting this guy, but can’t seem to find the time, money, and resources to prosecute the nearly 150,000 or so people who are denied a purchase through the NICS system, many based upon their felon status.

    I guess they’re too busy handing over guns to Mexican cartels!

  • JT

    And here is your great 2nd Amendment savior, the Supreme Court

  • snnn

    ….and folks wonder why I NEVER buy a firearm form an FFL. The lesson for me is
    crystal clear, and missed by a lot of the badge lickers here, the ATF can (in practice)
    interpret this 4473 ANYWAY it wants. The legal print is meaningless and as its all on
    the taxpayer dime anyway whether the ATF ‘wins” or “loses” in front of SCOTUS is….irrelevant.

  • Lammo

    Blue. No, yellow. AAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!

  • Blake

    “the Court has diminished the ATF’s power by stating that the ATF’s interpretation doesn’t matter”

    So be very very careful if you put a Sig arm brace & on a rifle with a <16" bbl…

  • iphonetechtips

    The real issue is with the current system of government & it’s severe corruption & perversion by influence of those who hijacked our nation’s monetary system (along with that of most other countries in the world). They have slowly altered the government where the elected politicians the framers intended to be free from influence & to represent the people see themselves as lords & kings doing the bidding of the ultra-wealthy, which is to ensure a nation of serfs unable to fight back against the elite power structure. By creating so many laws (that don’t even meet the common law or constitutional grounds for a law in the first place) they live in fear and get caught in the trap to keep them distracted & unable to attempt changing them. Through education, media & economic bribery it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. When it gets bad enough those in positions of enforcement realize things have gone too far they have no choice but to comply or become unemployed & possibly a victim of their previous coworkers.

    There are so many things wrong with society & government, but they all stem in one way or another from the usurping bankers & there lap dogs when they passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Repealing that would be the best place to start. Until then bankers have total control.

  • supergun

    Did not Abramski go into the store. Yes or No. Answer: Yes. Did not Abramski pick up gun, inspect it and buy gun. Yes or No. Answer Yes. Did not Abramski pay for the gun. Yes or No. Answer: Yes Did Abramski walk out the store as owner of gun. Yes or No. Answer: Yes. Where I came from, you are the owner of that gun.

    • gunslinger

      Did dude buy a g19? Yes. Did dude get a check from a buddy that had ‘for glock 19? Yes. Did dude turn around and transfer g19 to said buddy? Yes. Thats what 11a says you cant do.

  • Dave

    …you are in error saying that Abramski’s uncle could have lawfully purchased the firearm…this was done in VA and Uncle lived in PA…the VA dealer, had Abramski told the truth in 11.a, would have asked and found that out…no sale…
    Abramski was morally and legally wrong…both in using the police ID from two years ago when he was fired to cheat the dealer out of the police discount, and in both counts that he was charged with…the fact that Uncle could have legally purchased a firearm is only true in his home state of PA….and the information AS ABRAMSKI GAVE IT was false…the lie in 11a and all the other info which followed were false and the 4473 AS FILLED OUT was required to be kept by the dealer and so falls under the records-keeping law…
    …the Court was right on this one…the dissenting minority wrong…
    …the constitutionality of the Brady Law and the administration of it with regulations set down by ATF has not come before the Court yet…but as the law and administrative law now stands…he was guilty on both counts…

  • Dave

    …a true gift…bought with your money…no problem at all…as the form explains…I’ve had my own FFL and run gun sales for years in a shop…never had a problem because we followed the rules…