Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
105,711 Posts
What a crock of shit. Even in her own example, if questioned by an attorney, "Did you buy that iPhone?" He couldn't say "No, Kagan bought it." Because the follow up question would be, "Do the tapes show that Kagan bought the iPhone?" To which they would say "No." The defendant would have been the purchaser.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
13,898 Posts
I agree with Sean. It is a crook. If the goal it to keep a person otherwise not OK to buy a gun from buying one, and in this case the ultimate user can buy it, how does this futher the purpose of the law. Sounds like it was more about a discount than avoiding a background check. You can see what a problem the King's appointees will be vs those by G. W.. Any further appointees and we are toast.
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
71,307 Posts
Mike, practically peaking you are correct. Technically speaking the law was violated.

And as to any more appointees, wait until Hillary is elected.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,340 Posts
From: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1493

In the summer of 2010, Abramski was arrested on charges related to a bank robbery committed several days before the gun purchase. In the process of searching Abramski’s residences for evidence related to those charges, the FBI found a written receipt from Alvarez recording the gun transfer. Federal authorities never filed bank robbery charges against Abramski and the state charges were dismissed. However, after the dismissal, a federal grand jury indicted Abramski for making a false statement on the ATF form claiming he was the actual gun purchaser in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and § 924(a)(2), and making a false statement about information required to be kept by a firearms dealer in violation of § 924(a)(1)(A).


...One of the things the FBI found was a check from his uncle with "Glock" written on it and more than enough evidence to support their contention that Abramski had purchased the pistol for, and only for, his uncle.

If the moron hadn't put anything on paper he'd be in the clear. All he had to do was say he bought it for himself, didn't like it, so he sold it to his uncle. There are no time limits for gun ownership in any regulations.

For example I've bought in quantity under my C&R license for my collection, then sold the ones that weren't as good or didn't fit my wants. What I didn't do is take orders for any guns, EVER.

What a favorable decision on this case would have done was broken the interstate control of gun sales by the ATF. Obviously the more Liberal on the court weren't ready for that, regardless of how stupid and useless the regulations are.

What is also obvious is that the government wouldn't have gone to the trouble of filing this difficult to prosecute (for any suspect of normal intelligence) charge if they didn't think he'd robbed a bank and gotten away with it. For a straw sale charge to stick you either need a history of multiple purchases and all sold immediately to someone else, actual presence of the end owner at a straw sale, or a paper trail which Abramski obligingly provided.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
99,413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
From: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1493

In the summer of 2010, Abramski was arrested on charges related to a bank robbery committed several days before the gun purchase. In the process of searching Abramski’s residences for evidence related to those charges, the FBI found a written receipt from Alvarez recording the gun transfer. Federal authorities never filed bank robbery charges against Abramski and the state charges were dismissed. However, after the dismissal, a federal grand jury indicted Abramski for making a false statement on the ATF form claiming he was the actual gun purchaser in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and § 924(a)(2), and making a false statement about information required to be kept by a firearms dealer in violation of § 924(a)(1)(A).


...One of the things the FBI found was a check from his uncle with "Glock" written on it and more than enough evidence to support their contention that Abramski had purchased the pistol for, and only for, his uncle.

If the moron hadn't put anything on paper he'd be in the clear. All he had to do was say he bought it for himself, didn't like it, so he sold it to his uncle. There are no time limits for gun ownership in any regulations.

For example I've bought in quantity under my C&R license for my collection, then sold the ones that weren't as good or didn't fit my wants. What I didn't do is take orders for any guns, EVER.

What a favorable decision on this case would have done was broken the interstate control of gun sales by the ATF. Obviously the more Liberal on the court weren't ready for that, regardless of how stupid and useless the regulations are.

What is also obvious is that the government wouldn't have gone to the trouble of filing this difficult to prosecute (for any suspect of normal intelligence) charge if they didn't think he'd robbed a bank and gotten away with it. For a straw sale charge to stick you either need a history of multiple purchases and all sold immediately to someone else, actual presence of the end owner at a straw sale, or a paper trail which Abramski obligingly provided.
I'd say you nailed it, sir.

Stupid is as stupid does - and in this case it sloshed over on the rest of us.
 

·
Copper Bullet Member
Joined
·
124 Posts
Well, I just finished reading through that section of the U.S.C. and found it to be more convoluted and confusing, taken as a whole, than even the poorly written NY Safe Act. I'm sure there is at least one "gotcha" that could theoretically apply to any of us.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top