The Supreme Court doesn't strike down straw purchasing

[steve4102]

And this is the problem in this case, no NICS check was bypassed.

Yes, In the original purchase and the Original 4473 form the NICS check was bypassed and was Illegal.

Later transferring the firearm to his Uncle via a different FFL does not negate the original Illegal Act.

[Rip Van Winkle]

And this is the problem in this case, no NICS check was bypassed.

Yes, In the original purchase and the Original 4473 form the NICS check was bypassed and was Illegal.

Later transferring the firearm to his Uncle via a different FFL does not negate the original Illegal Act.

Yes, the public is much safer now that this criminal mastermind has been convected. </sarcasm>

Would you feel the same way if Abramski had taken payment for the weapon after it was transferred to his uncle?

[jshuberg]

Steve, just so we all understand your standard, after what amount of time is it no longer reasonable to be upset about a loss of liberty? 20 years, 10 years, 1 year? Enlighten us, so that we may properly conform to your standards.

[steve4102]

Steve, just so we all understand your standard, after what amount of time is it no longer reasonable to be upset about a loss of liberty? 20 years, 10 years, 1 year? Enlighten us, so that we may properly conform to your standards.

What Liberties have you lost with the NICS form 4473?

[steve4102]

And this is the problem in this case, no NICS check was bypassed.

Yes, In the original purchase and the Original 4473 form the NICS check was bypassed and was Illegal.

Later transferring the firearm to his Uncle via a different FFL does not negate the original Illegal Act.

Yes, the public is much safer now that this criminal mastermind has been convected. </sarcasm>

Would you feel the same way if Abramski had taken payment for the weapon after it was transferred to his uncle?

I don't "Feel" anything. I am just stating the facts and the Laws.

Not only did Abramski commit an Illegal act with his "Straw" purchase, he committed Fraud.

He used his LEO discount to save his Uncle a few bucks. His uncle was not entitled to the LEO discount, so Abramski committed fraud in that regard.

[jgalt]

Steve, just so we all understand your standard, after what amount of time is it no longer reasonable to be upset about a loss of liberty? 20 years, 10 years, 1 year? Enlighten us, so that we may properly conform to your standards.

What Liberties have you lost with the NICS form 4473?

Which clause in the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to create the NICS?

Answer this question correctly and you'll be most of the way to the answer to yours...

[jshuberg]

You respond to my question with a question. That is not a valid answer. How much time has to pass before a loss of liberty or government overreach is just considered "just the way it is", and no longer deserving of public complaint?

[Rip Van Winkle]

Not only did Abramski commit an Illegal act with his "Straw" purchase, he committed Fraud.

This is where you and I disagree. If Abramski had handed the weapon to a prohibited person then I would consider it a "straw purchase". If he handed it over to his uncle across state lines you might be able to convince me it was a "straw purchase".

If Abramski had taken payment after transfer it would have been considered a sale instead of a "straw purchase". This is nothing more than prosecuting someone for nothing more than a paperwork violation. A bad ruling on an Immoral law.

Fraud? seriously?

[steve4102]

Not only did Abramski commit an Illegal act with his "Straw" purchase, he committed Fraud.

This is where you and I disagree. If Abramski had handed the weapon to a prohibited person then I would consider it a "straw purchase". If he handed it over to his uncle across state lines you might be able to convince me it was a "straw purchase".

If Abramski had taken payment after transfer it would have been considered a sale instead of a "straw purchase". This is nothing more than prosecuting someone for nothing more than a paperwork violation. A bad ruling on an Immoral law.

Fraud? seriously?

Because you disagree with a law does not make the Law any less valid.

See the ATF publication Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, 2005, at page 165

http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/d ... 5300-4.pdf

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms...

First Paragraph last sentence.

http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/n ... -vol-1.pdf

[Rip Van Winkle]

Because you disagree with a law does not make the Law any less valid.

Just because it's valid doesn't make it moral or just.

[jshuberg]

We would still be a British colony if Steve had his way. The government is simply all powerful, and it's subjects must comply with whatever they demand. If you argue or complain, you are a bad sheep, and need to be herded back into line.

[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.

Like what?

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

Yep, it serves no meaningful use.

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

I think believing that we prohibit anybody from obtaining a firearm is silly at best. I would not be surprised if felons have killed more people with cars than with guns, we should take away their ability to drive while we are at it.

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

Do it on occassion, so what benefit is the 4473?

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

Glad we fixed that dangerous middle man situation.

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

No middle man, whew disaster averted.

What is your bitch about the NICS paper work?

It's useless, doesn't stop anybody from doing anything. Bad guys don't need shiny new guns to do what they intend to do. Look at the recent headliner events many have stolen their guns or like in Nevada, the guy was prohibited.

Even though you shouldn't need to do anything, showing a PTP/PTC and handing them money should be adequate to buy from a dealer. We have to get rid of the misconception that guns are dangerous or make people more dangerous, they are objects. Crime is crime and it shouldn't matter if you use a gun or not. I know it won't be corrected in my lifetime without another civil war which would suck more than having to deal with these useless regulations.

[jshuberg]

I'd disagree slightly with one thing you said. While a gun is an inanimate object, it's very purpose is to be dangerous. It is designed and intended to be a dangerous object. If it weren't dangerous, it wouldn't really have any purpose.

Being dangerous is not a bad thing. A soldier is dangerous. A police officer is dangerous. A kick boxer is dangerous. When I am carrying a firearm, I am dangerous. Not simply because of the gun, but because of it, and my training to use it.

Dangerous becomes bad when it's employed by someone reckless or with criminal intent. When employed by a lawful, good person, dangerous becomes a benefit to the public.

This childish, simplistic desire to prevent violence by eliminating anything dangerous is foolhardy and would eventually result in anarchy and rampant violence if it were ever realized.

[Ghost]

When I am carrying a firearm, I am dangerous. Not simply because of the gun, but because of it, and my training to use it.

Maybe it's semantics, but synonyms for dangerous are menacing, threatening, treacherous; savage, wild, vicious, murderous, desperate. Just because you are capable of being dangerous doesn't ultimately make you so.

With your reasoning a gun is dangerous because it was designed to kill where as a car, baseball bat, hammer, rope, a rock and axe are not. But each item in the hands of somebody whom wants to utilize them for evil is more than adequate.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

And buying a more dangerouser assault rifle with banana clip and thing that goes up is more complicated than buying a shotgun when statistically more murders are committed with shotguns than rifles.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

[jshuberg]

I would say that a car, a hammer, a baseball bat, a rock, etc. are all dangerous, albeit in different ways and different levels. A gun is different in only one way from any other potentially dangerous objects we come across daily - it was specifically designed to be dangerous. And this is a good thing and makes it a very useful object for personal protection.

Perhaps a better way to phrase it is to say that these things are *potentially* dangerous, and that the danger is only realized when under the control and direction of a human being. I think we're on the same page, just that our language differs slightly.

My point though was that a dangerous (or potentially dangerous) object isn't necessarily a bad thing. A dangerous person also isn't necessarily a bad person. It all depends on how, when and where an act of being dangerous is actually applied.

It has been suggested in England to ban kitchen knives and other dangerous objects to prevent violence. You could argue that the kitchen knife isn't dangerous, or you could argue that dangerous doesn't mean bad, and that the usefulness of the knife outweighs any risk of danger it presents.

My personal opinion is that we need to challenge the notion that we need to eliminate danger, or otherwise need to strive to make the world safe by restricting liberty. The world is not safe. It will never be. Banning or restricting objects or actions because they are potentially dangerous needs to be challenged on its premise. If we don't, we'll find ourselves locked in a very safe cage for our own protection.