Big news coming down the pipe for Straw purchase laws..

[GA Firing Line]

This case is a big deal and has a lot of potential consequences for dealers and consumers.

 

[RallySport]

I'll bet you two dollars that it will be MUCH less then 10 years. If it goes 5 more years I would be shocked...


Its coming ladies and gentleman.... Just stick your head in the sand and keep voting for the same jokers and RINO's that you always do.

well put sir....i think you will see your time prediction by november when you see your midterm results...gonna be real hush hush till then as far as big firarms movements go... but just wait and see what he does in his last two years of his term with absolutley NOTHING TO LOSE....

 

[RamRoddoc]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was intended to stop prohibited people -such as felons, drug users, the severely mentally ill and domestic abusers - from getting firearms. Congress deliberately did not attempt to control transfers between people who are lawfully allowed to have a gun.

The assistant to the solicitor general, Joseph Palmore, admitted to the court that the ATF was “interpreting” the will of Congress when it added the “actual buyer” question in 1995 on the background form.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ki-decision-will-determine-oba/#ixzz2rUlM1H9t
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Making criminals one policy at a time....

Critical to this discussion is the purpose and intent of the law, not some alphabet agency manipulating that intent and violating the existence of the law.

SCOTUS has 5 judges that seem to comprehend at least to some level that for the common citizen, the right to keep and bear arms exist. However 4 judges do not and consider it legally within the government's power to deny a citizen having a handgun (only for military and LEO) and even deny a citizen from having a functioning firearm within their own home.

If justice is served in this case, likely another 5/4 decision, then the ATF form will be revised, ATF ordered to cease and desist in prosecuting firearms transfers between honest legal citizens and quit creating criminals of honest citizens via legal interpretation-policy making at least until a changing of the guard.

However, just one more liberal judge and consider the second amendment null and void as an individual right but rather a "right" bestowed on the National Guard the "true" recipients of the right not the common people.

We only deserve the rights we are willing to fight for. Just one more judge will clarify that for our society.


Read more here:

The oral arguments in the case of Abramski v. United States, where the Supreme Court is determining if the ATF can change the definition of what is a "straw buyer" without a change in the statute, and whether a person who transfers a firearm to someone who can legally posses the firearm is involved in a "straw purchase". The ATF had one interpretation of the statute from the implementation of the law in 1968 until 1994, 26 years later. Then they started a different interpretation of the law under the Clinton regime.

The arguments did not seem to go well for the government, as several of the justices focused on the ATF change in interpretation of the law, which occurred in 1994, without a change in the statute. From Mr. Dietz, the defendants attorney:

Another point, Your Honors, is that the
21 plain text interpretation of the statute is one that the
22 agency, ATF, had adopted initially. In 1979, the Agency
23 sent a circular to gun dealers that took the -- the
24 precise position that -- that Petitioner is taking here,
25 which is that a purchase of a gun for another lawful gun
1 owner is permissible. And in doing so, the -- the
2 Agency said that that was an interpretation of the text
3 of the Gun Control Act.
Justice Roberts Questioning the Government's lawyer, Mr. Palmore:
17 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Where in the Act
18 does -- is the basis for the requirement on the form?
19 The form says, you know, if you're not the actual,
20 you're buying for somebody else. Where is that in the
21 statute?
22 MR. PALMORE: That is ATF's reasonable
23 interpretation of the statute and I was just going to
24 get to that.
25 JUSTICE SCALIA: Its current one. It used
1 to have a different one.
2 MR. PALMORE: That's the current one, and
3 it's been consistent for the last 20 years, Justice
4 Scalia.

More Here:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/01/supreme-court-oral-arguments-focus-on.html

 

[InitialKev]

I still don't understand how the gun came into question if it wasn't used in the bank robbery that he didn't partake in. Did he try to transfer it at a FFL and it somehow got red flagged?