• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Lady Wants To Buy Pistol For Husband. Is that legal?

You did not source your erroneous information. A :"straw purchase" is not a federal crime.

The U.S Supreme Court expressly said so in Abramski v. United States. Supreme Court decisions trump unattributed internet quotes every time. We have discussed this many times

Abramski made a straw purchase, there was no question about that. He was charged with two crimes,



Neither he or the ultimate purchaser was charged with conducting a "straw purchase" because it's not a federal crime.

Mindlessly repeating erroneous internet memes does not morph them into the truth.
My erroneous information came linked from the atf dont buy for the other guy campaign. If its outdated thats on them. I clearly said im not a lawyer, nor do i have the finacial assest to get into a legal battle to fight a straw purchase accusation. There is no mindless meme posting here nor were any posted.
 
You did not source your erroneous information. A :"straw purchase" is not a federal crime.

The U.S Supreme Court expressly said so in Abramski v. United States. Supreme Court decisions trump unattributed internet quotes every time. We have discussed this many times

Abramski made a straw purchase, there was no question about that. He was charged with two crimes,



Neither he or the ultimate purchaser was charged with conducting a "straw purchase" because it's not a federal crime.

Mindlessly repeating erroneous internet memes does not morph them into the truth.

P.S. Abramski bought the gun for his uncle, and as far as I know the uncle got to keep the gun, because there was nothing illegal about its purchase or the transfer of possession.
Also just because in that case, of which i have little knowledge, it would seem they uncle was not restricted from owning a firearm? Is that correct?
 
You did not source your erroneous information. A :"straw purchase" is not a federal crime.

The U.S Supreme Court expressly said so in Abramski v. United States. Supreme Court decisions trump unattributed internet quotes every time. We have discussed this many times

Abramski made a straw purchase, there was no question about that. He was charged with two crimes,



Neither he or the ultimate purchaser was charged with conducting a "straw purchase" because it's not a federal crime.

Mindlessly repeating erroneous internet memes does not morph them into the truth.

P.S. Abramski bought the gun for his uncle, and as far as I know the uncle got to keep the gun, because there was nothing illegal about its purchase or the transfer of possession.
Abramski did not make a straw purchase because his Uncle is legally able to own a gun. A straw purchase is defined as buying a gun or service for someone who isn't legally allowed to own it. Straw purchases are definitely illegal, buying as a gift is not a straw purchase, unless of course the person can't legally own it and you knew that.
 
Abramski did not make a straw purchase because his Uncle is legally able to own a gun. A straw purchase is defined as buying a gun or service for someone who isn't legally allowed to own it. Straw purchases are definitely illegal, buying as a gift is not a straw purchase, unless of course the person can't legally own it and you knew that.
I just read a few articles on this, since i did not know of it prior and came to the same conclusion. The uncle was legally able to own the firearm. Abramski at the time of filling out the form was the actual buyer of the firearm. This is not the same as the quote i posted earlier from the atfs dont buy for the other guy campaign.
 
Abramski did not make a straw purchase because his Uncle is legally able to own a gun. A straw purchase is defined as buying a gun or service for someone who isn't legally allowed to own it. Straw purchases are definitely illegal, buying as a gift is not a straw purchase, unless of course the person can't legally own it and you knew that.
Abramski did not make a straw purchase because his Uncle is legally able to own a gun. A straw purchase is defined as buying a gun or service for someone who isn't legally allowed to own it. Straw purchases are definitely illegal, buying as a gift is not a straw purchase, unless of course the person can't legally own it and you knew that.

Jesus Christ. Abramski admitted he made a straw purchase. SCOTUS accepted that he made a straw purchase; The dissenting opinion accepted that he made a straw purchase. Saying that he did not make a straw purchase is just absurd.

If he didn't make a straw purchase, then he couldn't be convicted about lying about it on the 4473, could he? And yet he was.

The whole dissent in Abramski is based on your position, that lying about a legal act could not be illegal. - but they recognized that it was a straw purchase. The majority REJECTED this argument, and did some real slicing and dicing to justify the conviction for lying about a LEGAL act, such act being a straw purchase for his uncle.

Likewise, your definition of a straw purchase is absurd. I'd like to see that definition from an authoritative source. Transferring a gun to someone who YOU KNOW is ineligible to own a gun is crime regardless of how the gun is acquired. If you bother to do a modicum of research, you will find that straw purchases are commonly used in many transaction across a broad range of subjects, and have nothing to do with buying something for someone who can't legally own it. A straw purchase is a purchase for an undisclosed principal who advances or agrees to advance payment for the goods or services.


Y'all act like no one ever heard of a "straw purchase" until people started buying guns for their felonious brothers in law. I know it's the cool thing to do on the interweb, but you can't just started making up definitions of accepted terms.
 
Also just because in that case, of which i have little knowledge, it would seem they uncle was not restricted from owning a firearm? Is that correct?

100% correct

As I noted, as far as I know, he got to keep the gun. There would be no legal reason to take it away from him. After all, every one agreed he had paid for it.

One of the interesting footnotes to this case is that Abamski was a former LEO who had a somewhat checkered past but he still had his LEO ID. With the ID he could get a really good price on the gun for his uncle, which is how all of this started. So the tale actually starts with Abramski improperly using his LEO ID.

I tried to find this fact, but it's late and I'm tired, but if I recall correctly, Abramski properly tranferred the pistol to his uncle through a FFL in the uncle's state.
 
Jesus Christ. Abramski admitted he made a straw purchase. SCOTUS accepted that he made a straw purchase; The dissenting opinion accepted that he made a straw purchase. Saying that he did not make a straw purchase is just absurd.

If he didn't make a straw purchase, then he couldn't be convicted about lying about it on the 4473, could he? And yet he was.

The whole dissent in Abramski is based on your position, that lying about a legal act could not be illegal. - but they recognized that it was a straw purchase. The majority REJECTED this argument, and did some real slicing and dicing to justify the conviction for lying about a LEGAL act, such act being a straw purchase for his uncle.

Likewise, your definition of a straw purchase is absurd. I'd like to see that definition from an authoritative source. Transferring a gun to someone who YOU KNOW is ineligible to own a gun is crime regardless of how the gun is acquired. If you bother to do a modicum of research, you will find that straw purchases are commonly used in many transaction across a broad range of subjects, and have nothing to do with buying something for someone who can't legally own it. A straw purchase is a purchase for an undisclosed principal who advances or agrees to advance payment for the goods or services.


Y'all act like no one ever heard of a "straw purchase" until people started buying guns for their felonious brothers in law. I know it's the cool thing to do on the interweb, but you can't just started making up definitions of accepted terms.

Literally every definition of a staw purchase is exactly how I described it. Where one party buys something for another that can't LEGALLY buy it themselves. No offense but you're making an ass out for yourself :lol: it's pretty funny really.
 
[QUOTE="FatAlbert, post: 8852935, member: 13758" . No offense but you're making an ass out for yourself :lol: it's pretty funny really.[/QUOTE]


Really.


So your position is that Abramski didn't make a straw purchase, because his uncle was perfectly entitled to own a firearm, even though he was charged with lying about it being a straw purchase.

So what you are saying is that he lied about something that never happened, and got convicted for it. That's a pretty good trick.

Again, I have to emphasize that Abramski, 9 justices of the Supreme Court, the NRA, BATFE and every one else remotely connected with the case (including 20 something state's attorney generals), disagrees with your definition, so I guess they are all asses too. Given the choice of the company I'll keep, I'll go with them. Apparently you keep missing this point, so maybe I am not reducing the explanation to the appropriate level, and if so I apologize.

If you take the time to actually READ Abramski, you would see that the ultimate question, and the one that split the U.S. Circuit Courts. is whether it is a crime to lie about a LEGAL transaction - that it was in fact a "straw purchase" is a given.

You have picked one subset (and I'm making a reach that you know about set theory) of straw purchases, and are trying to generalize it to ALL straw purchases, and that's just not the way it works. A straw purchase for the purpose of transferring a gun to an ineligible owner are illegal, straw purchases as form of purchase are not.

In fact, the Supreme Court gives a very specific, if somewhat convoluted explanation of a legal straw purchase of a gun, but then you would have had to have read the case to know that.



BTW, for those who are truly interested in educating themselves. and not just blowing fluff our their butt for amusement SCOTUS clarified that the "straw purchaser" is the ultimate recipient - not the person actually making the across the counter transaction.

I guess you can be like Dorothy, keep repeating it and clicking your heels together, and maybe you will be correct.
 
Really.


So your position is that Abramski didn't make a straw purchase, because his uncle was perfectly entitled to own a firearm, even though he was charged with lying about it being a straw purchase.

So what you are saying is that he lied about something that never happened, and got convicted for it. That's a pretty good trick.

Again, I have to emphasize that Abramski, 9 justices of the Supreme Court, the NRA, BATFE and every one else remotely connected with the case (including 20 something state's attorney generals), disagrees with your definition, so I guess they are all asses too. Given the choice of the company I'll keep, I'll go with them. Apparently you keep missing this point, so maybe I am not reducing the explanation to the appropriate level, and if so I apologize.

If you take the time to actually READ Abramski, you would see that the ultimate question, and the one that split the U.S. Circuit Courts. is whether it is a crime to lie about a LEGAL transaction - that it was in fact a "straw purchase" is a given.

You have picked one subset (and I'm making a reach that you know about set theory) of straw purchases, and are trying to generalize it to ALL straw purchases, and that's just not the way it works. A straw purchase for the purpose of transferring a gun to an ineligible owner are illegal, straw purchases as form of purchase are not.

In fact, the Supreme Court gives a very specific, if somewhat convoluted explanation of a legal straw purchase of a gun, but then you would have had to have read the case to know that.



BTW, for those who are truly interested in educating themselves. and not just blowing fluff our their butt for amusement SCOTUS clarified that the "straw purchaser" is the ultimate recipient - not the person actually making the across the counter transaction.

I guess you can be like Dorothy, keep repeating it and clicking your heels together, and maybe you will be correct.
TLDR.
 
Back
Top Bottom