• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

Goshin said:
If it is bought for someone who is legal to own a gun, it should not be a crime.


Think about how ridiculous this is... making it a CRIME punishable by imprisonment, to legally buy a legal product and give it to someone who is legally allowed to own same. Insanity.
Click to expand...

In all fairness to the court, what they said was that lying on the 4473 was a crime. They didn't (to my reading of the decision) actually change anything. That being said, I totally agree that if no harm was done then it shouldn't be prosecuted.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Last month a 4 year old child was gunned down outside of her home by a Gang member with a gun bought by someone else legally then sold to this piece of ****. The buyer knew whom he was selling too and what the weapon was going to be used for. This is a common thing. These bangers aren't law abiding citizens legally buying guns. If you buy a gun for someone that you know is a criminal and they're going out and murder with that weapon then you also pulled the trigger of that firearm.
Click to expand...



No argument. What some of us are saying is that buying a gun for someone who IS legal to own one is a different thing and should not result in imprisonment.

Given that I can still legally transfer a gun to another person, without being obliged to notify the State or Fed of same, where is the line here? If I buy it and transfer it that week, I'm a felon? If I wait three months I'm not?


Does anyone have a link to the actual law in question?
 
HenryChinaski said:
Last month a 4 year old child was gunned down outside of her home by a Gang member with a gun bought by someone else legally then sold to this piece of ****. The buyer knew whom he was selling too and what the weapon was going to be used for. This is a common thing. These bangers aren't law abiding citizens legally buying guns. If you buy a gun for someone that you know is a criminal and they're going out and murder with that weapon then you also pulled the trigger of that firearm.
Click to expand...

If it can be proved that the buyer gave the gun to someone he or she knew (or had reason to believe) was a prohibited person then they committed a crime under subsection 922. That's already on the books and we don't need another law to deal with the issue.
 
Lutherf said:
In all fairness to the court, what they said was that lying on the 4473 was a crime. They didn't (to my reading of the decision) actually change anything. That being said, I totally agree that if no harm was done then it shouldn't be prosecuted.
Click to expand...


So...

I can still buy a gun and legally transfer it to someone else. In my state, no notification of the State is necessary.

So how long between the purchase and the transfer is required before they consider it "straw purchase"? A week? Three months? This is crazy, it can make felons of honest citizens...
 
HenryChinaski said:
Last month a 4 year old child was gunned down outside of her home by a Gang member with a gun bought by someone else legally then sold to this piece of ****. The buyer knew whom he was selling too and what the weapon was going to be used for. This is a common thing. These bangers aren't law abiding citizens legally buying guns. If you buy a gun for someone that you know is a criminal and they're going out and murder with that weapon then you also pulled the trigger of that firearm.
Click to expand...

IOW, the straw purchase law didn't prevent a damn thing? The only thing it's really going to prevent is one law abiding citizen from buying a gun and giving it to another law abiding citizen.

Did it ever occur to you how useless anti-gun laws are, or is it just about banning gun ownership, with no real concern about crime prevention?
 
apdst said:
If that person is too dangerous to own a gun he is too dangerous to be on the streets and should be in jail.
Click to expand...

Isn't crazy that a mass murderer can marry and even have sex in prison but can't own a gun.

He can even marry a queer and have homo sex but can't own a gun legally...
 
notquiteright said:
Actually no, have you tried buying a beer, some cigarettes maybe?
Click to expand...
Many times, and I have never had to pass a background check to buy them. I merely had to prove that I was old enough.

I've said on this thread that an age requierment is one of the few justified gun control laws, so I don't see your point.

Does your state require a background check when you buy beer?
 
Maenad said:
Well, someone will inherit mine when I die, as will be the case with all gun owners.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly surprised I don't hear gun control advocates propose the government take peoples guns when they die.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
So...

I can still buy a gun and legally transfer it to someone else. In my state, no notification of the State is necessary.

So how long between the purchase and the transfer is required before they consider it "straw purchase"? A week? Three months? This is crazy, it can make felons of honest citizens...
Click to expand...

It doesn't change anything. You can buy a gun today, walk into the parking lot and sell it to someone else (or give it to them) and be fine with the law.

What you can't do is get caught lying on a 4473.

The facts of the case are that Abromski was asked by a relative to buy the gun at a discount and received payment for it up front. He then purchased the gun and lied on the 4473 (question 11.a). What he did was exactly what the instructions say not to do.

Is it a stupid rule? Sure. Is he an idiot for not following the rule? Damned straight.
 
Lutherf said:
While I won't dispute that these are infringements I will note that they are all based on prior acts and not a presumption of guilt upon the transferee. Such restrictions are, historically, reasonable under the law.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question about the 'except' part.
The GCA of 1968 is actually the government giving itself a power specifically denied by the Constitution. Of course they made it seem reasonable, otherwise it would not have passed. The Patriot act seems reasonable too.
How many more acts are going to seem reasonable?

Limits were put on the government for a reason. It is a shame that most people have forgotten that.
 
Henrin said:
I'm honestly surprised I don't hear gun control advocates propose the government take peoples guns when they die.
Click to expand...

If the government can make a reasonable-seeming law to do just that, I wondered what other parts of your estate they could lay claim to... oh wait.
 
danarhea said:
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I don't see a reason to allow purchasing to give to someone else. The desire to give a friend something should not outweigh the necessity to ensure that only law abiding citizens are able to obtain firearms. IF you want to buy someone a gun, give them the money (in some form) to get it themselves, legally.
 
RogueWarrior said:
If the government can make a reasonable-seeming law to do just that, I wondered what other parts of your estate they could lay claim to... oh wait.
Click to expand...

They already do it if the gun is deemed illegal, so all they would have to do is just take all of the guns instead of just the illegal ones.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Last month a 4 year old child was gunned down outside of her home by a Gang member with a gun bought by someone else legally then sold to this piece of ****. The buyer knew whom he was selling too and what the weapon was going to be used for. This is a common thing. These bangers aren't law abiding citizens legally buying guns. If you buy a gun for someone that you know is a criminal and they're going out and murder with that weapon then you also pulled the trigger of that firearm.
Click to expand...

True, yet does not trump my 2A rights. I am sure someone died in an auto accident in Chicago last week end too. Should you quit driving?
 
ernst barkmann said:
well currently government lays a 55% tax on property , if its over a certain value.
Click to expand...

The line is $1,500,000. Most people are not worth that much when they die. And if they are, the feds want money, not guns.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I have my fathers guns. He died in 1987. Someone feel frisky and wanna try to tax them or take them?
Click to expand...

well they would fall under a value, the government would tax, but i was taking of all property when you die....over a certain value....
 
RogueWarrior said:
That doesn't answer the question about the 'except' part.
The GCA of 1968 is actually the government giving itself a power specifically denied by the Constitution. Of course they made it seem reasonable, otherwise it would not have passed. The Patriot act seems reasonable too.
How many more acts are going to seem reasonable?

Limits were put on the government for a reason. It is a shame that most people have forgotten that.
Click to expand...

I have no problem restricting the rights of people who have proved themselves to be incapable or unwilling to handle the responsibilities that go along with those rights. If, for example, you got pissed off because your wife served you cold oatmeal and you shot her in a fit of rage I figure it's quite reasonable, in direct contradiction to a strict reading of the 2A, to prohibit you from handling firearms....or sharp objects....or blunt objects.
 
Maenad said:
The line is $1,500,000. Most people are not worth that much when they die. And if they are, the feds want money, not guns.
Click to expand...

correct......i was stating just of how government lays a claim to you property....it it falls within what they determine.
 
Lutherf said:
I have no problem restricting the rights of people who have proved themselves to be incapable or unwilling to handle the responsibilities that go along with those rights. If, for example, you got pissed off because your wife served you cold oatmeal and you shot her in a fit of rage I figure it's quite reasonable, in direct contradiction to a strict reading of the 2A, to allow you to handle firearms....or sharp objects....or blunt objects.
Click to expand...

well individual rights of people can be curtailed.....however the "right" itself, meaning for all the "people" cannot, the constitution forbids that
 
Supreme Court rules on 'Straw Purchaser' Law.....

Another victory for BO.....what did I tell say Last year. They have been getting their way and more is to come. Its his pet peeve now. He knew what he was getting putting Kagan on that bench. Same deal with Sotomayor. Now what say ye?


A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun. The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.

The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork. Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'Straw Purchaser' Law.....

MMC said:
Another victory for BO.....what did I tell say Last year. They have been getting their way and more is to come. Its his pet peeve now. He knew what he was getting putting Kagan on that bench. Same deal with Sotomayor. Now what say ye?


A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun. The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.

The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork. Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html
Click to expand...

This is the primary reason to get the Presidency - stacking the SCOTUS to shape the country via ideology. It sucks but that what we're left with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom