De Blasio joins the gun-control advocacy group that Bloomberg founded

[SecularMotion]

Forming a rare alliance with his predecessor, Mayor de Blasio is joining the gun-control advocacy group founded and funded by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Daily News has learned.

Often critical of the previous administration, de Blasio told The News he’s a big supporter of Bloomberg’s high-profile push for stronger gun control measures.

“Mayor Bloomberg took on this fight when few others would, and today we are safer for it,” de Blasio said in a statement to The News. “He built a national movement for common-sense gun control — one I am proud to join.”

De Blasio said he plans to focus on two issues once he joins the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He wants to work with the state’s two Democratic U.S. senators, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, in their fight to increase penalties for “straw” purchases of guns by one individual for another buyer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/blaz-joins-gun-control-group-mike-founded-article-1.1596230

[gejohnston]

1. in their fight to increase penalties for “straw” purchases of guns by one individual for another

I agree if buying for a prohibited person. As for buying for someone who is not a prohibited person, it may or may not be illegal, or if the then IRS now ATF misinterpreted the law when printing the 4473.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/supreme-court-will-hear-va-straw-purchase-gun-case/article_b6b9c4da-45e6-5da2-8f7d-8b300a5de499.html
stay tuned.

[SecularMotion]

2. It's weak case, but I don't trust this RW Supreme Court to make a fair ruling.

Since neither he nor his uncle was barred from owning guns, Abramski argues, his misrepresentation to a gun dealer about who was the actual buyer should not constitute a crime.

He wasn't honest about his reason when purchasing the gun. As far as I understand, all he had to do was provide proof that the person he was purchasing the gun for was not a prohibited person. He failed to do so at the time of purchase and committed a crime.

[gejohnston]

3. not quite

The Gun Control Act only says you can not buy for a prohibited person. The law does not require him to provide proof of anything about anyone else, especially since it is impossible to prove a negative. The issue is whether or not the 4473 reflects the law correctly or is over reach by first the IRS and then the ATF (the question was worded the same way before ATF became its own agency.). The GCA says nothing about buying for someone who isn't a prohibited person. If you make a private sale to who you know is a prohibited person, it is still a crime.
I don't expect fair rulings from LW or RW courts. Judges are politicians in robes and both factions will use whatever tortured logic to make rulings to fit their ideology instead of the facts.
BTW, Kagan and Scalia are shooting and hunting buddies.

[SecularMotion]

4. He could have purchased the gun for his uncle legally

if it was transferred through licensed firearm dealers, but he chose to misrepresent himself as the buyer and transfer the gun to his uncle personally.

[gejohnston]

5. he could have

since you can buy as a gift. For example, you can use your own money to buy the gun as a gift for another person. In this case, the uncle wrote him a check, even said "for gun" in the memo line, to pay for it. That is the part that may have made it illegal.
Still, the issue is does the straw purchase ban apply to only prohibited persons, as the GCA reads, or to all persons as the 4473 reads. In short, does the 4473 accurately reflect the law? Some federal courts say yes, other say no. It doesn't matter how you or I think it should mean. It only matters what the law says. I always took the form at face value.
If the uncle resides in another state, like most INTERNET sales, then the gun would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in the uncle's state for the transfer.
this guy explains it better

[SecularMotion]

6. The question is should we allow buyers to make straw purchases

Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2014, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

on the good faith that the weapon will end up in the possession of a non-prohibited person. I say no.

As I said, this is a weak case since the buyer admits the he lied on the form. I suspect this case is being pushed onto a court that may likely rule in favor of the gun lobby and weaken the Gun Control Act. Just as they have voted to weaken the Voting Rights Act and Campaign Finance laws.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

7. The GCA won't be weakened

The GCA won't be weakened because the crime allegedly committed only exists in an interpretive rule the ATF created in the 1990's.

During oral argument the Justices spent considerable time asking why, prior to this 180 degree course change this sale would have been perfectly legal and how the ACTUAL law can legitimately be interpreted both ways (that the sale was legal and then 'POOF', it isn't legal) without any change in the law.

This case will have less to do with the 2nd Amendment / gun rights and more to do with how federal agencies creatively read laws and invent various "interpretive rules" that, only through regulatory powers, (and not the law itself), become criminal violations.

[Eleanors38]

10. I agree with your assessment re GCA. Another provision

which puts gun-owners in jeopardy is the line-item mention of "marijuana" use in 4473, whereby you have to attest you don't use it under felony penalty of prosecution AND gun confiscation/prohibition should you say "no," and the feds somehow find out that you do. Absurd.

Events in the states may increasingly make this a dead letter, but prohibitionists gotta prohibit, so the 4473 dope use provision can be abused if the feds want to do so.

[gejohnston]

8. he could have

simply sold it to his uncle. If the uncle paid him after he bought the gun, then there would be no issue.
what does the gun lobby have to do with the Voting Rights Act or campaign finance laws?

[SecularMotion]

9. Yes, he had other options to make the transfer in a legal manner according to the law

So, why did he violate the law?

[gejohnston]

11. the question is

did he violate the law, or did the ATF interpret it wrong while making the form. Since the uncle is not a prohibited person, there was no ill intent.

[SecularMotion]

12. You still haven't answered the question

Should we allow buyers to make straw purchases on the good faith that the weapon will end up in the possession of a non-prohibited person?

[gejohnston]

13. making a straw purchase vs

selling it to him later is really a distinction without a difference depending only when money changed hands. Had the uncle gave him cash, there would be no case.

[SecularMotion]

14. But that's not what happened. There is a case and you are still avoiding the question.

[gejohnston]

15. no I didn't

you just have to read between the lines.

[SecularMotion]

16. If you can't give a direct answer to the question

there's no use in further discussion with you.

[gejohnston]

17. if liberals view people as basically good

and doesn't require threats of eternal fire and brimstone to be ethical and moral people, then wouldn't taking it on good faith that the gun will land up with a non prohibited person be the liberal position? I think so. The law prohibits guns being transfered to prohibited persons, both sides in the case agree to that. IIRC, it would be a stiffer penalty than straw buying. If I didn't, then it would be inconsistent with my view of liberalism. That isn't to say there isn't evil or people with ill intent, there certainly are. They just are not as common as the media seems to portray.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

19. "Good faith" purchases are made all the time.

It's called a gift.

When a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser as far as question 11(a) is concerned.

[SecularMotion]

21. But that's not what happened in this case. He was making a straw purchase.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

18. What law did he violate?

What law did he violate?

He did not violate the GCA-68 because the LAW does not require the info provided in response to question 11(a). He violated an "interpretive rule" that was instituted in 1994 that reversed what was considered legal before.

The LAW permitted the exact transfer that Abramski did until ATF began "interpreting" it to criminalize an otherwise legal interstate transfer (through an FFL, 4473 filled out, background check done).

[SecularMotion]

20. The violation was providing false information on form 4473.

If the law does not require a response to 11(a), why did he choose to provide false information in lieu of not responding?