Supreme Court rules on straw purchases

[Traderjohn]

The BATF is your friend. They are just looking out for your best interest.

 

[Jack O A T]

The Supreme Court upheld a three-letter-agency's regulations and rules that were intended to support and give practical effect to a law passed by Congress.
Congress made the federal laws requiring a point-of-sale registration form (which ATF created and called the Form 4473).
Congress made the federal laws requiring a background check for all gun buyers (the Brady law).
Those are not examples of new law being created by an agency, nor judicial activism.

If you recognize the legitimacy of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Background Check law, then you should understand that these things are meaningless if you are allowed to send a friend (or even a hired agent-- maybe a taxi driver that you promise a $50 tip to? to buy the gun for you, filling out his name on the documents and having his record background-checked.

If you don't recognize the legitimacy of the GCA '68 or the Brady Law, or if you think those laws should be repealed, ASK CONGRESS TO DO IT. Don't ask the Justice Department and the courts to ignore a federal law and sanction a huge loophole. It's a federal law passed by Congress of generations ago. Today's Congress can amend or repeal it.

You obviously have a much better understanding of the law than I, but the "loophole" exists whether sanctioned or not if the uncle had just handed him cash instead of a check. The point being that the INTENT of the laws passed were not, are not, and should not be to suppress a transaction between two lawful parties. The intent was do try to deny access of firearms to criminals. Neither of these parties were such and the uncle went through a BG check on the transfer.

This is another example of a law passed during a different generation who's intent in the law has been corrupted by the next generation. This is the reason gun rights advocates are skeptical of ANY new firearms laws. If you had explained that THIS would be the future use of this law in 1968 or in 1993, there would have been much more opposition at the time.

This is also another example of how when you give this administration an inch, they will take your ruler...and then tell you a tape measure is much better for you anyway.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Jack O A T:

While the ultimate goal of the law is to interdict and discourage prohibited persons from getting guns from FFL dealers, the METHOD by which Congress chose to work toward that goal featured two specific mechanisms (Form 4473 and a Brady Background Check) that it mandated for ALL buyers of guns at retail from an FFL dealer. Federal law doesn't allow you to skip the background check just by you announcing that you're legal, or that you intend to sell or give the gun to another person who is legal. The intent of the law is that the ACTUAL BUYER of the gun be identified and background-checked, because that intent furthers and promotes the ultimate goal of interdicting deliveries to prohibited persons, and the other goal of helping authorities "trace" a crime gun back to the point-of-purchase.

 

[baxterday]

Kagan and Sotomayer rubber stamp anything anti-gun, as well as Ginsburg. Kegan has no more business on the supreme court than a pedophile does babysitting kids.

 

[GEORGIA GUN STORE]

"My friend is legal" is not on the form 4473.

 

[Jack O A T]

Jack O A T:

While the ultimate goal of the law is to interdict and discourage prohibited persons from getting guns from FFL dealers, the METHOD by which Congress chose to work toward that goal featured two specific mechanisms (Form 4473 and a Brady Background Check) that it mandated for ALL buyers of guns at retail from an FFL dealer. Federal law doesn't allow you to skip the background check just by you announcing that you're legal, or that you intend to sell or give the gun to another person who is legal. The intent of the law is that the ACTUAL BUYER of the gun be identified and background-checked, because that intent furthers and promotes the ultimate goal of interdicting deliveries to prohibited persons, and the other goal of helping authorities "trace" a crime gun back to the point-of-purchase.

And the way I see the wording of this ruling is that it furthers and promotes the ultimate goal of universal background checks for all gun transfers and gun registration which WILL lead to confiscation.
No offense to you or anyone who believes differently, but IMHO, if you see this ruling as nothing more than upholding the original intent of the law, then you are not only agreeing to a death by a thousand cuts, you're helping hold the razor.

 

[mach1yell]

This seems like the first step in registration. Legal justification for 'tracking'.

Yep

 

[CMDRShepard]

After taking time to read the whole thread (which is a lot to ingest), there is one question that I have. What happens how? With the change in law, what happens so the state's law about straw purchases? How does it affect our state? What about the 10th amendment (states laws)? With this administration bringing the country to its knees, what is going to happen in the future?

 

[tv_racin_fan]

According to them (not me), because then LEO would trace a gun back to the purchaser, who wasn't really the original owner. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the decision, I'm just interpreting it.

The intent of the law had nothing to do with the ability to trace a firearm to anyone. The intent was to prevent people from purchasing firearms for people who could not legally purchase their own.

 

[Jack O A T]

The intent of the law had nothing to do with the ability to trace a firearm to anyone. The intent was to prevent people from purchasing firearms for people who could not legally purchase their own.

Add to the end of that: "from a licensed dealer."
Now the "actual purchaser is much more open to interpretation.

To those still not convinced this is bad: read the two opinions and decide which you feel more comfortable with.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/12-1493.pdf