• 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

CRUE CAB said:
Where does it say I cannot buy the gun for a friend or relative. Like I have done before and will continue to do as I like.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with you, here is the actual language used on form 4473:

Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.
Click to expand...

Technically, you are acquiring the firearm for yourself, but for the purpose of gifting it to another in the very near future. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I somewhat agree with you, here is the actual language used on form 4473:



Technically, you are acquiring the firearm for yourself, but for the purpose of gifting it to another in the very near future. ;)
Click to expand...
But I am the "buyer". Its says nothing about continued ownership.
The reason is there is long tradition of fathers buying guns for their children in this nation. Just like when I got my step son his first 1911.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Where does it say I cannot buy the gun for a friend or relative. Like I have done before and will continue to do as I like.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but buying one for someone who can not pass a background check is different I suppose. Personally with the advanced 3D Printers all this is going to be mute eventually. You will be able to make your own weapons.
 
voyager1 said:
I don't know, but buying one for someone who can not pass a background check is different I suppose. Personally with the advanced 3D Printers all this is going to be mute eventually. You will be able to make your own weapons.
Click to expand...

Anyone I have bought guns for are previous owners of guns they bought on their own. So I don't worry about it. But given the state of the nation on gun rights. I am sure many want me charged for doing so.
 
CRUE CAB said:
But I am the "buyer". Its says nothing about continued ownership.
The reason is there is long tradition of fathers buying guns for their children in this nation. Just like when I got my step son his first 1911.
Click to expand...

I agree, since the intent of the law is to prevent a prohibited person from offering you, as a non-prohibited person, the cash to buy a gun for them; it was not intended to prevent the gifting (or sale) of a legally purchased gun to a non-prohibited person.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree, since the intent of the law is to prevent a prohibited person from offering you, as a non-prohibited person, the cash to buy a gun for them; it was not intended to prevent the gifting (or sale) of a legally purchased gun to a non-prohibited person.
Click to expand...
I bet more minors have died from adults providing alcohol for them then people killed by straw purchase guns. Lets work on that if anything.
 
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 read it and I disagree with the Court's ruling. It isn't going to stop guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. And yes it does appear you would be breaking the law if you bought a gun for a friend, which also confirms my opinion that the ruling is wrong.
 
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?
Click to expand...

I'm sure those who would purchase a gun for a potential criminal would respect this law. I'm sure this won't only affect people who wish to buy gifts for their family members.

I wait gleefully for the news of plummeting violent crime, as all the criminals become productive members of society because their straw purchasers tell them "Sorry, it's illegal now, and I respect the law."

Now maybe the criminals will too.



Deuce said:
Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.
Click to expand...

Anyone who is a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. If the former criminal cannot be trusted to own a gun, then they can not be trusted to be a citizen either.

I somehow doubt one with criminal intent will give up their ways simply because they cannot purchase a gun legally. Besides, it's a basic human right. Or do you oppose human rights for reformed criminals?
 
voyager1 said:
I don't know, but buying one for someone who can not pass a background check is different I suppose. Personally with the advanced 3D Printers all this is going to be mute eventually. You will be able to make your own weapons.
Click to expand...

I have a printer file to make a 3-D gun. However, the law says that, if you print a gun, you are required to put a slug of metal in it so that metal detectors can detect it. If you don't, then it is prison.
 
danarhea said:
I have a printer file to make a 3-D gun. However, the law says that, if you print a gun, you are required to put a slug of metal in it so that metal detectors can detect it. If you don't, then it is prison.
Click to expand...

How exactly would you enforce that law? Seems to me if someone wants to print a plastic gun to circumvent a metal detector, by the time the crime is known it would be too late to prevent anything.
 
MaggieD said:
Your birthday gift complaint is easily circumvented by a gift certificate. I have no problem with the ruling. It was the right thing to do.

Just make sure the gun shop has access to these:
Click to expand...

It's perfectly legal for anyone to give a firearm to anyone else who isn't a prohibited person. To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a required "holding period". This ruling seems to play to the letter of the law with no regard to the common sense intent of the law. It's one of those deals where, in this particular case, a "crime" was committed even though there was no harm to any party.

To put this in perspective, let's say that you did your taxes and claimed $30,000 in charitable contributions that you never made but your income was only $10,000 and you wouldn't have owed any tax anyway. Did you cheat? Yes, you did, but the impact of cheating was absolutely nothing.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's simple logic. If they are too dangerous to own a firearm, they shouldn't be out. It's completely idiotic, that someone who gets a felony for possession of marijuann when their 19 can't even own a firearm when their 50. The logic is completely out the window on that one.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that also. Personally I think firearm restrictions should only come from firearm-related crimes.

Edit: involving violence or threat of violence, I mean. Not "failed to register" or something.
 
Last edited:
Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."
Click to expand...

Obviously, Abramski is guilty and I don't see how the law (see bolded above) could've been interpreted any other way. Scalia is wrong....

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.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
Your birthday gift complaint is easily circumvented by a gift certificate. I have no problem with the ruling. It was the right thing to do.

Just make sure the gun shop has access to these:

Lisa%20splatter%20paing%20Glock%2017web.jpg
Click to expand...

But why should any law abiding U.S. citizen have to circumvent a law like this?

I could certainly understand if the point of this law was to stop non-law abiding citizens who are not legally allowed to purchase or own firearms from doing so but it seems like the sole intent is to hassle law abiding citizens who are well within their rights to own a firearm.
 
Republic Now! said:
How exactly would you enforce that law? Seems to me if someone wants to print a plastic gun to circumvent a metal detector, by the time the crime is known it would be too late to prevent anything.
Click to expand...

A law being difficult to enforce is not itself a reason to make the action legal.
 
Blue_State said:
District of Columbia v. Heller
Click to expand...

This case did not overturn any and all gun control laws, so I'm not sure how you see this as a rebuttal. You should try not to think in such absolute terms.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I bet more minors have died from adults providing alcohol for them then people killed by straw purchase guns. Lets work on that if anything.
Click to expand...

There are children starving in Africa, so we can't do anything about voter fraud.
 
Deuce said:
This case did not overturn any and all gun control laws, so I'm not sure how you see this as a rebuttal. You should try not to think in such absolute terms.
Click to expand...

You brought up well regulated militias. I brought up the court case where you do not have to be a part of a well regulated militia to own a firearm. If I missed your point, my apologies.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Once I buy it, its mine to do with what I want. Period end of story.
Click to expand...

The guys problem was he got paid to buy the gun 3 days before he actually bought it for his uncle, not only that the uncle wrote glock 19 in the memo section.

I'm sure (at least I hope so) there wouldn't have even been an issue if he bought the gun and then sold/gave it to his uncle.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Where does it say I cannot buy the gun for a friend or relative. Like I have done before and will continue to do as I like.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that as long as you 100% responsible for whomever is injured or killed by the weapon. You bought it.... you OWN it. That is the way the law should read. Buy a gun or 10 guns in Florida and one turns up in a gang banger killing in Detroit you are charged with manslaughter. If legal gun owners took responsibility we would not have the problems we do.
 
iguanaman said:
I have no problem with that as long as you 100% responsible for whomever is injured or killed by the weapon. You bought it.... you OWN it. That is the way the law should read. Buy a gun or 10 guns in Florida and one turns up in a gang banger killing in Detroit you are charged with manslaughter. If legal gun owners took responsibility we would not have the problems we do.
Click to expand...
Put me in jail if I sell a car to someone that kills someone in a DUI accident too? Or how about I rent my house out and someone kills another in it?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Put me in jail if I sell a car to someone that kills someone in a DUI accident too? Or how about I rent my house out and someone kills another in it?
Click to expand...

No Actually the law would cover only handguns. We don't have an epidemic of DUI killings like we do with legally purchased handguns winding up in the hands of criminals.
 
iguanaman said:
No Actually the law would cover only handguns. We don't have an epidemic of DUI killings like we do with legally purchased handguns winding up in the hands of criminals.
Click to expand...

More people are killed with cars than with guns and you know it. Guess what, we don't have an "epidemic" of hand gun killings either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom