TexasCHLforum.com

This is a non-issue, from my perspective. A gift is "A transfer of property with nothing given in return." This case did not involve actual gift-giving, but a quid-pro-quo, which is definitely a no-no for 4473 transfers.

I know folks will discuss the finer points until the cows come home, but as an FFL, this changes nothing from my perspective. Frankly, I see no reason why this rose to the level of a Supreme Court decision.

cb1000rider wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:The uncle was paying for the handgun, and the nephew was buying it. Had the nephew bought the gun and gave it as a gift, there would have been no problem.

Can you make this more clear, legally speaking... I dug and dug and couldn't find a way that you could legally buy a gun for someone else. You've got to essentially break the law by indicating that you're not buying the firearm for someone else.. Is there a "gift" box that I don't know about? (ATF Form 4473)

I know that a gift is not a straw purchase, as there is no money involved.

It appears that the only way to do it is to purchase it for yourself and transfer it through an FFL...

Someone correct me..

Well, I see you've already noticed the gift instructions posted above for question 11a of the Form 4473.

Let me expand on my original comment, "follow the money".

In this case, the uncle wrote a check to the nephew dated prior to the nephew purchasing the firearm. Pretty easy to follow the money in this case. There is no arguing that the nephew bought the gun, decided he didn't like it, and later sold it in a private sale, as the funds preceded the purchase.

For a gift, there should be no quid-pro-quo movement of money from the gift receiver to the gift giver.

As far as your comment, "purchase it for yourself and transfer it through an FFL" that misses the point. Even if the nephew had given the gun to his uncle by transferring it through an FFL, his original charge was making a false statement on the Form 4473 for the original purchase. A later transfer via FFL still does not negate the earlier false statement.

Of course, if you are gifting or selling a handgun or long gun (any firearm) to an ordinary non-FFL person who resides in a different state, that must always go through an FFL because interstate transfers must always pass through an FFL. The only (rare) exceptions are firearms bequeathed after death.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.

Nope, no gun registry shenanigans going on thru NICS there... Not a smidgeon!

I wonder how she explains the legality of private transactions then? Actually, that's a question better left unasked.

OldCannon wrote:\

I know folks will discuss the finer points until the cows come home, but as an FFL, this changes nothing from my perspective. Frankly, I see no reason why this rose to the level of a Supreme Court decision.

Frankly, I am not sure why the Supreme Court granted this one Cert. and not some other, more expansive cases. But I am by no means a legal scholar.

This ruling changed nothing. It has always been this way.

Jumping Frog wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:The uncle was paying for the handgun, and the nephew was buying it. Had the nephew bought the gun and gave it as a gift, there would have been no problem.

Can you make this more clear, legally speaking... I dug and dug and couldn't find a way that you could legally buy a gun for someone else. You've got to essentially break the law by indicating that you're not buying the firearm for someone else.. Is there a "gift" box that I don't know about? (ATF Form 4473)

I know that a gift is not a straw purchase, as there is no money involved.

It appears that the only way to do it is to purchase it for yourself and transfer it through an FFL...

Someone correct me..

Well, I see you've already noticed the gift instructions posted above for question 11a of the Form 4473.

Let me expand on my original comment, "follow the money".

In this case, the uncle wrote a check to the nephew dated prior to the nephew purchasing the firearm. Pretty easy to follow the money in this case. There is no arguing that the nephew bought the gun, decided he didn't like it, and later sold it in a private sale, as the funds preceded the purchase.

For a gift, there should be no quid-pro-quo movement of money from the gift receiver to the gift giver.

As far as your comment, "purchase it for yourself and transfer it through an FFL" that misses the point. Even if the nephew had given the gun to his uncle by transferring it through an FFL, his original charge was making a false statement on the Form 4473 for the original purchase. A later transfer via FFL still does not negate the earlier false statement.

Of course, if you are gifting or selling a handgun or long gun (any firearm) to an ordinary non-FFL person who resides in a different state, that must always go through an FFL because interstate transfers must always pass through an FFL. The only (rare) exceptions are firearms bequeathed after death.

He did actually transfer the gun thru a FFl because his uncle lived out of State. The only reason he bought the gun was because the uncle wanted his police discount.

This case was discussed in the past and it is interesting to see the supreme court decision. The only thing that surprises me is that all 9 justices didn't agree that this was a straw purchase. How much clearer could the paperwork be that was signed and sworn to? I am not saying that I agree with the law, only that the purchaser lied when he signed his John Henry. There are consequences to a lie, at least for the peons. The politicians seem to be immune to punishment for lies.

rotor wrote:The only thing that surprises me is that all 9 justices didn't agree that this was a straw purchase. How much clearer could the paperwork be that was signed and sworn to? I am not saying that I agree with the law, only that the purchaser lied when he signed his John Henry.

The question before the court was whether the false statement was material.

Here is the opinion: Abramski v. United States

Here is the opening paragraph:

[quote=""SCOTUS"]Petitioner Bruce Abramski offered to purchase a handgun for his uncle. The form that federal regulations required Abramski to fill out (Form4473) asked whether he was the “actual transferee/buyer” of the gun, and clearly warned that a straw purchaser (namely, someone buying a gun on behalf of another) was not the actual buyer. Abramski falsely answered that he was the actual buyer. Abramski was convicted for knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a gun, 18 U. S. C.§922(a)(6), and for making a false statement “with respect to the information required . . . to be kept” in the gun dealer’s records, §924(a)(1)(A). The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Held:
1. Abramski’s misrepresentation is material under §922(a)(6). Pp. 7–22.[/quote]
The really sobering portion of that decision is the court's finding of materiality in the false statement. This may give pause to folks who fib a little on Question 11(e).

11(e). Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Had the transfer not had to go through an FFL, because the uncle was in a different state, we probably never would have heard about this at all. It's also slightly amazing that anyone would even bother taking this case to court when they don't bother with the thousands of others, including felons, that try to purchase firearms from stores and fail the background check. Too me, that would seem to be someone they would want to go after more than either one of these guys that could legally purchase the gun on their own. EEllis mentioned that the only reason they did it this way was so the uncle could get the nephew's LE discount.

C-dub wrote: It's also slightly amazing that anyone would even bother taking this case to court when they don't bother with the thousands of others, including felons, that try to purchase firearms from stores ...

This may be a good moment to pause and reflect on the truth of the saying "elections have consequences".

All the righteous people who valiantly refused to vote for the imperfect (R) alternative because he failed to be conservative enough can look in the mirror when contemplating the names "Sotomayor" and "Kagan". Wouldn't it have been nice to have nominees who would have joined an opinion with Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito?

There is a lesson here for grown-ups willing to listen when 2016 rolls around.

Seems pretty cut/dried to me--I'm with OldCannon. If anyone here has a good theory as to WHY the SCOTUS would even bother with this I'd like to hear it (or I maybe I missed it).

OldCannon wrote:This is a non-issue, from my perspective. A gift is "A transfer of property with nothing given in return." This case did not involve actual gift-giving, but a quid-pro-quo, which is definitely a no-no for 4473 transfers.

I know folks will discuss the finer points until the cows come home, but as an FFL, this changes nothing from my perspective. Frankly, I see no reason why this rose to the level of a Supreme Court decision.

Jumping Frog wrote: The really sobering portion of that decision is the court's finding of materiality in the false statement. This may give pause to folks who fib a little on Question 11(e).

11(e). Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Hmmm... Especially if that includes caffein or nicotine. Note that it's "unlawful user of, OR addicted to"

sjfcontrol wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote: The really sobering portion of that decision is the court's finding of materiality in the false statement. This may give pause to folks who fib a little on Question 11(e).

11(e). Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Hmmm... Especially if that includes caffein or nicotine. Note that it's "unlawful user of, OR addicted to"

Can't include caffeine or nicotine, which afaik are not "controlled substances".

This also reads to me like prescribed (medical) marjuana would still mean "no".

TomsTXCHL wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote: The really sobering portion of that decision is the court's finding of materiality in the false statement. This may give pause to folks who fib a little on Question 11(e).

11(e). Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Hmmm... Especially if that includes caffein or nicotine. Note that it's "unlawful user of, OR addicted to"

Can't include caffeine or nicotine, which afaik are not "controlled substances".

This also reads to me like prescribed (medical) marjuana would still mean "no".

I'm not sure the "controlled substance" clause applies to the prior list of specific items. And I don't imagine that Texas would recognize the authority of a medical mj card.