Sen. Royce West Sets a Trap for Law-Abiding Gun Owners

[Soccerdad1995]

The problem I see with the Abramski case is that the uncle paid Mr. Abramski for the gun. Otherwise, it would have been considered a gift and that would have made it "legal". A friend of mine fell into this exact situation when he allowed a friend of his to purchase a pistol for him because he could get a discount.

Therein lies the problem. The Abramski Court held that the person who comes to the FFL and fills out the 4473 must be the ultimate recipient. This would mean buying a gun to give to another person, with or without payment, would result in a felony violation. BATFE instructions for Question 11a are in direct conflict with Abranski.

Chas.

I have a son-in-law who was in the Marine Corp. He also has his LTC. Is there a "proper" way to obtain a gun for him as a gift?

Give him the money and have him buy the gun himself. Kind of ruins the *surprise* but yea...

I could do that, but that's exactly what I'm asking. He has no legal restrictions on owning a firearm. But I can't buy him one as a gift. I have to take him to the dealer, pay for it, and then let him fill out the 4473. Kind of hard to put that under the Christmas tree.

You could buy a gun online and then have it shipped to an FFL in his name. You pay for the gun and he completes the 4473 at the FFL. It would preserve some element of surprise - tell him you want to go shooting on his birthday, and when you get to the range spring the news and have him do the transfer. Or if you were real close with an FFL, you might get them to come to your house.....

[Alf]

Straight from the horse's . . . mouth

[Charles L. Cotton]

In addition, Abramski briefly notes that until 1995, the ATF took the view that a straw purchaser’s misrepresentation counted as material only if the true buyer could not legally possess a gun. See Brief for Petitioner 7–8; n. 8, supra. We may put aside that ATF has for almost two
decades now taken the opposite position, after reflecting on both appellate case law and changes in the statute. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 41; Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, §103, 107 Stat. 1541 (codified at 18 U. S. C. §922(t)). The critical point is that criminal laws are for courts, not for the Government, to construe. See, e.g., United States v. Apel, 571 U. S. ___, (2014) (slip op., at 9)

(“[W]e have never held that the Government’s reading of a criminal statute is entitled to any deference”). We think ATF’s old position no more relevant than its current one which is to say, not relevant at all. Whether the Government interprets a criminal statute too broadly (as it some times does) or too narrowly (as the ATF used to in construing §922(a)(6)), a court has an obligation to correct its error. Here, nothing suggests that Congress—the entity whose voice does matter—limited its prohibition of a straw purchaser’s misrepresentation in the way Abramski proposes.

No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun’s purchaser—the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer. Had Abramski admitted that he was not that purchaser, but merely a straw—that he was asking the dealer to verify the identity of, and run a background check on, the wrong individual—the sale here could not have gone forward. That makes Abramski’s misrepresentation on Question 11.a. material under §922(a)(6). And because that statement pertained to information that a dealer must keep in its permanent records under the firearms law, Abramski’s answer to Question 11.a. also violated §924(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.

It is so ordered

There's nothing ambiguous or confusing about this ruling. It's wrong, but it's the law per the SCOTUS. There is a strong and correct dissent, but they lost.
Chas.

Abramski v. United States

[dlh]

For those interested here are links to Sections 922 and 924.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924

In my opinion these statutes are poorly worded and should be either repealed or completely rewritten. I will contact Senators Cornyn and Cruz in 2017 and express my concerns--I would hope they have concerns too.

Soon President-Elect Trump will be at the helm and I believe he will also take it seriously.