The Supreme Court doesn't strike down straw purchasing

[jgalt]

Regardless of why, it is the Law and has been for over 20 years.

So of course we should all accept what the ATF has decreed, no matter how incredibly assinine the decree may be, and never challenge it, right?

The 1992 decree was dumb. The SC upholding it is just as dumb. We can't complain about it? What the hell else is the Interwebs for if not to complain about stupid **** other people do - especially stupid bureaucrats...

[steve4102]

Regardless of why, it is the Law and has been for over 20 years.

So of course we should all accept what the ATF has decreed, no matter how incredibly assinine the decree may be, and never challenge it, right?

The 1992 decree was dumb. The SC upholding it is just as dumb. We can't complain about it? What the hell else is the Interwebs for if not to complain about stupid **** other people do - especially stupid bureaucrats...

What exactly are you upset about?

The fact that you cannot take money from another and buy a gun for him/her?

Of all the gun laws we have forced upon us, this, this little nothing, is what you have to complain about? It's nothing, it means if Billy Bob wants to buy a gun he has to do the same thing you do, fill out the form and get checked out.

If you are willing fill out the form for yourself, why are you upset that Billy Bob must do the same?

[igofast]

I don't understand why the bitching though. Almost no-one gets prosecuted as-is:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden ... nd-checks/

Unless you leave a paper trail in the open indicating that you are using your former LEO discount to purchase a firearm for someone else while having their money in hand while being investigated for bank robbery - it's really a non-issue.

My real concern is if Abramski had won - in which case the 4473 would need to change. Given our current political environment, I'm sure all the changes would be positive for us.(that's sarcasm)

[jgalt]

What exactly are you upset about?

The fact that you cannot take money from another and buy a gun for him/her?

Of all the gun laws we have forced upon us, this, this little nothing, is what you have to complain about? It's nothing it means if Billy Bob wants to buy a gun he has to do the same thing you do, fill out the form and get checked out.

If you are willing fill out the form for yourself, why are you upset that Billy Bob must do the same?

I'm not upset about anything. Stupid bureaucrats doing stupid things - and the SC upholding the stupid things they do - is pretty much par for the course and I am no longer anywhere near surprised when it happens.

I am a bit surprised when I see people such as yourself take the side of the bureaucrats after they've made a criminal out of someone who had no criminal intent. Because some lawmaker or agency peon declares something to be illegal or improper doesn't make it actually wrong, and I have a problem with people being punished when they've done nothing wrong.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. This kind of thing can only happen if enough people take your attitude and actively defend those abusing their power....

[steve4102]

What exactly are you upset about?

The fact that you cannot take money from another and buy a gun for him/her?

Of all the gun laws we have forced upon us, this, this little nothing, is what you have to complain about? It's nothing it means if Billy Bob wants to buy a gun he has to do the same thing you do, fill out the form and get checked out.

If you are willing fill out the form for yourself, why are you upset that Billy Bob must do the same?

I'm not upset about anything. Stupid bureaucrats doing stupid things - and the SC upholding the stupid things they do - is pretty much par for the course and I am no longer anywhere near surprised when it happens.

I am a bit surprised when I see people such as yourself take the side of the bureaucrats after they've made a criminal out of someone who had no criminal intent. Because some lawmaker or agency peon declares something to be illegal or improper doesn't make it actually wrong, and I have a problem with people being punished when they've done nothing wrong.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. This kind of thing can only happen if enough people take your attitude and actively defend those abusing their power....

LOL. I'm not defending anything or anybody. I'm just stating the simple facts. Fact, this law has been on the books since 1968. Fact, in 1992 the ATF expanded their definition of a "Straw Purchase" to include all persons not just prohibited persons. Fact, people like you are now upset at the ATF, "bureaucrats" and the Courts for upholding a law that we have been following for over 20 years. Little late to get your panties in a wad over the 4473 form, doncha think.
Still Laughing!

[jshuberg]

We wouldn't be discussing this had the Supreme Court not taken the case. As you say, this "infringement" is really just an inconvenience, and not worth discussing - except the SC ruling did bring it up for discussion. It's minor, but it does evidence the governments true goals of controlling every aspect of firearms ownership and transfer, and the creation of a registry.

Am I upset? No. Am I surprised? No. Since the topic was introduced into the public dialog by the supreme court ruling am I going to take the opportunity to chime in my $0.02 and bitch about it? Yep.

[steve4102]

We wouldn't be discussing this had the Supreme Court not taken the case. As you say, this "infringement" is really just an inconvenience, and not worth discussing - except the SC ruling did bring it up for discussion. It's minor, but it does evidence the governments true goals of controlling every aspect of firearms ownership and transfer, and the creation of a registry.

Am I upset? No. Am I surprised? No. Since the topic was introduced into the public dialog by the supreme court ruling am I going to take the opportunity to chime in my $0.02 and bitch about it? Yep.

What part of the SC ruling are you going to Bitch about, or are you going to bitch about the entire NICS requirements that have been in place since 1968?

[ex-LT]

We wouldn't be discussing this had the Supreme Court not taken the case. As you say, this "infringement" is really just an inconvenience, and not worth discussing - except the SC ruling did bring it up for discussion. It's minor, but it does evidence the governments true goals of controlling every aspect of firearms ownership and transfer, and the creation of a registry.

Am I upset? No. Am I surprised? No. Since the topic was introduced into the public dialog by the supreme court ruling am I going to take the opportunity to chime in my $0.02 and bitch about it? Yep.

What part of the SC ruling are you going to Bitch about, or are you going to bitch about the entire NICS requirements that have been in place since 1993?

FYP.

[Ghost]

What part of the SC ruling are you going to Bitch about, or are you going to bitch about the entire NICS requirements that have been in place since 1993?

There actually is plenty to bitch about on the uselessness of NICS requirements.

[steve4102]

What part of the SC ruling are you going to Bitch about, or are you going to bitch about the entire NICS requirements that have been in place since 1993?

There actually is plenty to bitch about on the uselessness of NICS requirements.

Like what?

The fact that you have to fill out a 4473 form?

The fact that a 4473 form may occasionally forbid a Prohibited Person from purchasing a firearm?

The Fact that one can purchase a Firearm and gift it?

The fact that one cannot purchase a firearm with someone else's $Money$?

The fact that one can sell his/her firearms to another individual, without issue as long as the recipient is not a prohibited Person?

What is your bitch about the NICS paper work?

[jshuberg]

The government should not (and many believe does not, court rulings not withstanding) have the power to regulate or interfere with firearm transfers. There simply is no constitutional charter granting it that power.

The vast majority of the federal governments powers are claimed under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. This is a complete perversion of the original intent of congress having the power to regulate interstate commerce. This power was granted by the people to "normalize" commerce between the states, which was required due to runaway tariffs and taxes being imposed on importation of out of state goods under the articles of confederation. Under the new, constitutional government, this power was granted to the congress to solve the immediate problem. Congress then solved the problem, which should have rendered the interstate commerce clause nothing more than a historical footnote.

In fact, there has been no constitutional charter for any power the government has claimed since the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling that opened the floodgates of unlimited federal government power. This is not the model the founders, or the people from which government derives it's power intended.

We bitch about firearm regulation, because it's a subject close to us. I should not have to fill out any forms, or comply with any process to purchase a firearm unless the state I reside in requires it.

Liberty is defined as the absence of government intrusion in the lives of the people. And by this definition, we have very little if any liberty left in any aspect of our lives.

Yes, I believe we have the right to bitch about this.

[Rip Van Winkle]

I'll simplify it even further.

Laws regulating the actions or behaviors which are harmful to others are moral.

Laws criminalizing actions based on paperwork technicalities are immoral.

[jgalt]

Yabut, what y'all don't realize is that steve4102 is OK with the government arbitrarily exercising authority it was never granted. I mean c'mon, it's been doing so for at least 20 years, so it is too late to be "upset" about it now...

[steve4102]

Yabut, what y'all don't realize is that steve4102 is OK with the government arbitrarily exercising authority it was never granted. I mean c'mon, it's been doing so for at least 20 years, so it is too late to be "upset" about it now...

Like I said, if you are upset about a 20+ year old law/ruling, it's a little late to get you panties in a wad now. You have had 20+ years to get off you butt and do something about it, where have you been, at your PC bitching or out trying to change this law/ruling? My guess is you have done nothing, cept bitch and bitch to the wrong people. Typical!

...and yes, I like the fact that the NICA check keeps people like Clyde Barrow from walking into a LGS and walking out with newly purchased firearms, yes I like the fact that I can buy a firearm and sell it to a private individual (as long as he/she is not prohibited), yes I like the fact that I can buy a firearm and give it as a gift, yes I like the fact that I do not have to wait to take possession of my newly purchased firearms, yes I like the fact that it is illegal to bypass the NICS check system by purchasing a firearm for someone else with their Money for the sole purpose of bypassing their NICS check. I do not like the fact that the ATF is breaking their own laws by collecting and photocopying FFL's NICS forms. This is the Obama Administrations way of developing a firearms data base and it is illegal, that I do not like.

[Rip Van Winkle]

yes I like the fact that it is illegal to bypass the NICS check system by purchasing a firearm for someone else with their Money for the sole purpose of bypassing their NICS check.

And this is the problem in this case, no NICS check was bypassed.
From the SCOUTS Blog:

Federal prosecutors later said that Abramski, at his uncle’s request, had bought the Glock from a dealer in Collinsville, Virginia, who catered to police officers seeking guns. He allegedly completed the government form, saying “yes” to the question about whether he was the actual buyer. His uncle had sent him a $400 check for the weapon, the government said. The gun was later transferred to his uncle, according to prosecutors, through a firearms dealer in Easton, Pennsylvania.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-preview-checking-up-on-gun-buyers/

FWIW, if memory serves me right, Clyde Barrow stole his weapons, like other gangsters of the period, from National Guard Armories.