Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumAbramski v. United States
In the fall of 2009, Bruce Abramski purchased a handgun for his uncle and indicated on the required form that he was the “actual buyer” of the gun. Before Abramski made the purchase, the uncle sent Abramski a check to cover the cost of the gun. After buying the gun, Abramski transferred ownership of the firearm to his uncle at a local gun store in a different state. Both Abramski and his uncle are lawful gun owners. After the transfer, the government criminally prosecuted Abramski for making a false statement claiming he was the “actual buyer” of the gun. Abramski argued on appeal that the relevant provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 do not apply when the purchaser intends to resell the gun to another lawful purchaser. That argument was rejected by the Fourth Circuit, which held that the identity of the purchaser is always a fact material to the sale and that the gun dealer was required to record the identity of the intended owner. The United States argues for affirmation that the Gun Control Act prohibits Abramski from lying about the identity of the actual purchaser, which makes the sale illegal and undermines the purpose of the law. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will settle a circuit split regarding the lawfulness of this type of intermediary gun purchase. This decision will also establish whether an individual may ever buy a gun on behalf of another buyer.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1493
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Do people buy guns for Christmas presents? If I wanted a black powder pistol for my birthday how would my wife go about buying it as a present without my knowing it until she gave it to me?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)if someone hands you the money to buy for them, it is an illegal straw purchase. If you buy for a gift, then it is legal.
Black powder weapons are not "firearms" under the Gun Control Act since they don't use fixed cartridges.
DonP
(6,185 posts)If I buy a shotgun for my Dad for Christmas or his birthday, I know he's qualified to own a gun.
I've always thought, to be a straw purchase, the person you were buying it for was not family, not qualified by state or federal law to own a firearm and you were doing it for financial gain or nefarious purposes.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)only an unqualified person would pay someone else to buy it for them. Looking at the "don't lie for the other guy" the NSSF and ATF puts out, I get the same impression that I do. Giving it away as a gift is not the same thing.
When my kids were under 18, I could legally buy a gun for them. Buying for one of their friends, on the other hand, is a entirely different issue.
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#parent-purchases
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in Jersey. Then again, what do you expect in the land of Chris Christie and Snookie?
needledriver
(836 posts)Muzzleloading black powder pistols are not considered "firearms". They are available by mail order or over the counter without being subject to the restrictions that a cartridge loaded pistol is.
YMMV, there are some places where even muzzleloader hand guns are restricted.
However, if your wife wants to surprise you with a custom 1911, she should probably cut a photo from a magazine and give you a coupon or gift certificate so you can buy the weapon yourself.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 24, 2014, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)
... it depends on where you are.
In NY State, you can purchase and own a muzzleloading handgun without a permit of any kind as long as you don't also possess any of the components required to make it fire: powder, cap, or ball. If you wish to possess any of those components, you must register the handgun and it must be listed on your permit.
It becomes problematic for someone who may, for example, wish to buy an antique flintlock pistol as a wallhanger, but also owns and fires other blackpowder firearms.
spin
(17,493 posts)This sounds at the most to be a technical violation of the law.
There's plenty of people who straw purchase firearms for criminals. To me it makes far more sense to go after them than to waste time and tax payer dollars prosecuting an honest citizen who bought a firearm for another honest citizen and then went so far as to complete the transfer of the weapon at a gun store in a different state.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)one of my brothers bought me a Mossberg 500 because he got a much better price than I could in my small town. I did repay him. Is there a family exemption? If so, it must not have applied in the OP's post.
Since there was a transfer using an FFL, I think this is a bullshit prosecution.
bmelton
(2 posts)There is no family exemption -- if the recipient is not qualified to own a firearm, and you know it, you may not sell it to them, family or no. You could probably make a fine argument if you did not know that your family member was a felon, but you might have to somehow prove that you did not know, if challenged.
If you "know, or have reason to believe" that someone may be disqualified, then selling them a firearm or giving them a firearm amounts to an illegal straw purchase, and is punishable.
I agree that this prosecution is bullshit, but it's also the most likely prosecution to result in a favorable precedent for second amendment rights.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to own firearms, so I don't quite see the problem, especially in the case of the guy being prosecuted. Hell, if he would have transferred it to his uncle without an FFL, he would likely not be being prosecuted, unless the uncle used the gun in a crime.
I hope you are correct about this case.
The interesting thing about my situation is that my brother is a cop. He also knew for certain that I was not disqualified from owning a gun.