TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

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.

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

Jumping Frog wrote:

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.

Jumping Frog wrote:

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.

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".

goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.

The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.

The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.

Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.

I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.

The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.

Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.

I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.

The thing of it is that it wasn't really law, it was a policy the BATFE adopted.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:
Like some others I'm still just trying to get my brain around why this was a SCOTUS case. So, was the judgement on whether or not a purchase for a third party is lawful (material to the lawfulness of the sale)? Whether the form/question/paperwork is a good or a bad seems like a seperate issue, it still appearss like he lied on it. I have more reading to do.

The argument was that since his Uncle could of bought the gun it may have been a lie but it doesn't matter, or wasn't material. to the lawfulness of the sale. Basically a lie is illegal if it affects whether or not the sale would be legal.

Dang it. That was far too simple. :-) Now I get how the question of being material was material. Thank you, sir.

I'm still a little surprised that this went to the Supreme Court but I assume it was unsettled law. Having already made a plug for the NRA, I am now going to wonder why they made this one of their cases. It may be cliche' but telling grandpa that you only lied to make life easier and no one was hurt, didn't fly far when I was a kid. Seems like we could have picked a better fight. If the check was cut ahead of time...........if nothing else I think Abramski is paying a bit of the stupid tax. The 10% discount probably wasn't worth it long term.

The thing of it is that it wasn't really law, it was a policy the BATFE adopted.

Now it is. Correct?

Jim Beaux wrote:It's ironic that our government of "we the people" is so focused on the minutiae of gun administration policy, and yet so lax on those who wantonly break our immigration laws.

This is draconian. Thugs wont do the paper work.

The anti's are breaking the bundle one twig at a time. It wont be long before the gov morphs this into a way to nail us for not using proper punctuation when buying our spouse or children guns.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:
The thing of it is that it wasn't really law, it was a policy the BATFE adopted.

Now it is. Correct?

It depends on how one uses language. Basically the law says that they are allowed to make regulations about certain things and that if you lie you can go to jail. So are you breaking the law or the regulation?

mojo84 wrote:But note that scotus has ruled is it still just a batfe regulation?