Supreme Court rules on straw purchases

[GeauxLSU]

The ruling was indeed incorrect. Not only did the SC redefine the definition of a straw purchase (someone please alert Webster and Merriam), but Kagan's idiotic opinion paved the way for firearm registration.

This decision made it illegal for a lawful gun owner to buy for another lawful gun owner, and there is no federal statute that says that today. This is judicial activism plain and simple.

But that's OK.... because it's LIBERAL judicial activism. If it was a conservative issue, there'd be blood....

 

[Gunfighter]

Ahh, but how can they prove the money from the check that was deposited for the gun was the exact same money used to purchase the gun?

He wrote Glock 19 in the memo line... And it was dated prior to the 4473.

 

[DogLegArms]

4473's are kept forever....and if a business goes under they are supposed to be returned to the ATF.

4473 has to be retained for 20 years and it can be discarded if still in business.

 

[captdave77]

I agree, but until the law changes, you SHOULD follow it or face the consequences.

We must obey the law while working to change it.

 

[bc]

He wrote Glock 19 in the memo line... And it was dated prior to the 4473.

But how can they prove he used THAT exact money to buy THAT exact gun? If you bring me a cup of water and I dump it into my pitcher of water, which is nearly full of water, can you determine which water is yours and which water was mine when I pour myself a drink?

Unless he took the check to the dealer and they accepted it for that gun, they technically had no case. Point being, if he told someone he wanted a G19 but was short of funds this week, and that someone loaned him the funds via a check with G19 written on it, who is the purchaser? If later, you can't repay the loan, you go to the FFL and legally transfer the gun as repayment, how is that illegal? He either had a really bad lawyer or he told the truth in the beginning believing he did nothing wrong and they used it against him.

This ruling was wrong and the case should have never made it to the courts.

 

[bc]

4473 has to be retained for 20 years and it can be discarded if still in business.

How many gun dealers remain in business 20 years? For those who don't, does the ATF discard them after twenty years? The NSA sees all.

 

[Gunfighter]

But how can they prove he used THAT exact money to buy THAT exact gun? If you bring me a cup of water and I dump it into my pitcher of water, which is nearly full of water, can you determine which water is yours and which water was mine when I pour myself a drink?

Unless he took the check to the dealer and they accepted it for that gun, they technically had no case. Point being, if he told someone he wanted a G19 but was short of funds this week, and that someone loaned him the funds via a check with G19 written on it, who is the purchaser? If later, you can't repay the loan, you go to the FFL and legally transfer the gun as repayment, how is that illegal? He either had a really bad lawyer or he told the truth in the beginning believing he did nothing wrong and they used it against him.

This ruling was wrong and the case should have never made it to the courts.

Here is the holding: Regardless whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”

The problem isn't the end user in this case. It's the guy on the 4473, an affidavit, that said he was in fact the actual buyer of the weapon. He lied. Period. They had the check from the actual buyer stating it was for a Glock 19, dated before the 4473. All they had to do was a simple serial number check to see where the gun came from, match it to the 4473 stating that someone else had bought the gun.
Bottom line, the guy that lied on the 4473 broke the law. Period. He just got caught. He just left a paper trail. Kinda like on 85, when you get pulled over, and there are a bajillion (real figure ) cars around you doing the same speed.

Had the actual buyer paid cash, I firmly believe that we wouldn't even be talking about it...

 

[mkdhotrod]

Whatever, impossible to enforce given that gifting firearms is legal. It's like texting and driving vs answering or using GPS and driving, this isn't Miranda vs Arizona were talking about.