Supreme Court weighs gun rights challenge

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The SCOTUS will strike down this law. They will uphold interstate sales between legally qualified individuals, as they should. I look for them to also strike down the form 4473 in its entirety. It is obsolete given the current NIC system. The only thing that needs to be recorded by the dealer is the approval code for the background check, all other questions on the form are verified and "answered" with an approval code.

[Danno 1,228]

We will continue to bring cases like this and continue to restore our freedoms, one case at a time.

In the near term we might see some advancement but in the long term your gun rights are toast.

when just one state with a large number of electoral votes goes decidedly Blue (due to immigration) the days of pro-gun presidents are over.

Anti-gun Presidents will put Anti gun Justices on the bench to decide these cases.

In other words, as soon as Fla finishes tipping Blue, the White house is gone, the Supreme Court appointments are gone.

[Merle 458]

I am a gun rights advocate, but this guy should have not done what he did. Question 11a on the 4473 clearly states "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." Now it's a different story if he bought the gun and then the next day decided he didn't want it and then sold it to his friend. As a private citizen without a license to sell firearms, he is not allowed to buy a gun for another person, period!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

he should know better.

Charles, I know we do not disagree on the ISSUE but saying this is like saying "Rosa Parks should have known better than to sit in THAT seat"

This arbitrary restriction of our rights is unconstitutional, but if it is not challenged...and that means someone gets arrested...it cannot be eliminated.

We can only expect Congress to do so much, and in fact they are only empowered to do so much. The rest needs to be handled with litigation. What do you think the odds of congress repealing the restriction on interstate sale of handguns are? You think Obama will sign it? In these cases you bend over your opponent and ram it up their popah with a SCOTUS ruling.

These are RIGHTS and I accept no compromise and no negotiation. Just as I would not expect black people or gays or Jews to accept some restriction on their rights. If someone needs to get arrested to get this to the place it needs to be, then so be it.

There is no "LAW" establishing the questions on form 4473. There is no LAW against giving a firearm as a gift. There is no LAW providing the BATFE the authority to ban the giving of firearms as gifts because of a question on a form. That is a regulation implemented by un-elected bureaucrats that restricts OUR rights. Imagine a similar form was used to establish the right to vote. Imagine you had to fill out this form to attend church. Or to post a comment on VJ. Who would accept that?

When legislation is the most expedient route...take it. When it is not..use litigation. IL would never have had concealed carry without being FORCED to do so. Too bad IL did not appeal the case to the SCOTUS. I was actually hoping we would have lost that one and by now we would have had forced national reciprocity of CC. Oh, well, we will get it next time

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am a gun rights advocate, but this guy should have not done what he did. Question 11a on the 4473 clearly states "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." Now it's a different story if he bought the gun and then the next day decided he didn't want it and then sold it to his friend. As a private citizen without a license to sell firearms, he is not allowed to buy a gun for another person, period!

Post the provision in the LAW that prevents the giving of firearms between individuals as a gift. Please. You are saying the shotgun a father gives his son for Christmas makes him a felon? And you are OK with that?

Rosa Parks should not have sat on that bus seat. It was illegal and she knew it.

The BATFE cannot make something illegal that is legal and cannot create law. There is no law against giving a firearm as a gift to another person that is not encumbered from owning firearms and a question on a form cannot make it so. Period.

The problem with your supposition is that you say "it is another story if..." Sorry, NO, there is no other story. A person legally able to buy firearms cannot be prevented from doing so and a question on a form cannot be used to prevent the legal sale of a firearm between qualified individuals.

It is against the LAW to knowingly buy a firearm for a person that is known not to be legally empowered to own guns. IF his uncle were a known felon, for example, then the sale/gift to his uncle is illegal. Against the LAW. In this case his sale was "against the interpretation of a question on a form" NOT against the law.

This ridiculous question is asking a dealer today to determine that this person will never sell or give this firearm to another person. There is no "if you decide you don;t want it tomorrow" clause.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

The purpose of the law is to stop legal buyers from buying for illegals or criminals who can't pass a background check. If this guy bought for his uncle as a gift, there would not be a case at all. If his uncle paid him back for the "gift", it doesn't really change the fact that both are legal to own the gun. It was done to save money for a family member, NOT to put a gun in the hands of an illegal.

What happened to "swift justice"? He bought it back in 2009, and it's just now going before the supreme court this summer.

[lostinblue 1,989]

The purpose of the law is to stop legal buyers from buying for illegals or criminals who can't pass a background check. If this guy bought for his uncle as a gift, there would not be a case at all. If his uncle paid him back for the "gift", it doesn't really change the fact that both are legal to own the gun. It was done to save money for a family member, NOT to put a gun in the hands of an illegal.

What happened to "swift justice"? He bought it back in 2009, and it's just now going before the supreme court this summer.

Swift justice.... No such thing. this is why many anti-gun laws are being passed on the state level.Look at NY state they pass the safe act in the middle of the night because the governor wants to run for president and It will take years for it to be challenged in the courts.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Post the provision in the LAW that prevents the giving of firearms between individuals as a gift. Please. You are saying the shotgun a father gives his son for Christmas makes him a felon? And you are OK with that?

Rosa Parks should not have sat on that bus seat. It was illegal and she knew it.

The BATFE cannot make something illegal that is legal and cannot create law. There is no law against giving a firearm as a gift to another person that is not encumbered from owning firearms and a question on a form cannot make it so. Period.

The problem with your supposition is that you say "it is another story if..." Sorry, NO, there is no other story. A person legally able to buy firearms cannot be prevented from doing so and a question on a form cannot be used to prevent the legal sale of a firearm between qualified individuals.

It is against the LAW to knowingly buy a firearm for a person that is known not to be legally empowered to own guns. IF his uncle were a known felon, for example, then the sale/gift to his uncle is illegal. Against the LAW. In this case his sale was "against the interpretation of a question on a form" NOT against the law.

This ridiculous question is asking a dealer today to determine that this person will never sell or give this firearm to another person. There is no "if you decide you don;t want it tomorrow" clause.

I think this sums it up nicely.

[Darnell 8,479]

The purpose of the law is to stop legal buyers from buying for illegals or criminals who can't pass a background check. If this guy bought for his uncle as a gift, there would not be a case at all. If his uncle paid him back for the "gift", it doesn't really change the fact that both are legal to own the gun. It was done to save money for a family member, NOT to put a gun in the hands of an illegal.

What happened to "swift justice"? He bought it back in 2009, and it's just now going before the supreme court this summer.

eh - it went up the food chain.

Going UP the food chain takes time.

County Court, State Court, Appeals Court, Federal District Court, Appeals Court, etc etc ...

[Merle 458]

Post the provision in the LAW that prevents the giving of firearms between individuals as a gift. Please. You are saying the shotgun a father gives his son for Christmas makes him a felon? And you are OK with that?

Rosa Parks should not have sat on that bus seat. It was illegal and she knew it.

The BATFE cannot make something illegal that is legal and cannot create law. There is no law against giving a firearm as a gift to another person that is not encumbered from owning firearms and a question on a form cannot make it so. Period.

The problem with your supposition is that you say "it is another story if..." Sorry, NO, there is no other story. A person legally able to buy firearms cannot be prevented from doing so and a question on a form cannot be used to prevent the legal sale of a firearm between qualified individuals.

It is against the LAW to knowingly buy a firearm for a person that is known not to be legally empowered to own guns. IF his uncle were a known felon, for example, then the sale/gift to his uncle is illegal. Against the LAW. In this case his sale was "against the interpretation of a question on a form" NOT against the law.

This ridiculous question is asking a dealer today to determine that this person will never sell or give this firearm to another person. There is no "if you decide you don;t want it tomorrow" clause.

I agree with you. I'm just telling you what the form says. The form needs to be changed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

In the near term we might see some advancement but in the long term your gun rights are toast.

when just one state with a large number of electoral votes goes decidedly Blue (due to immigration) the days of pro-gun presidents are over.

Anti-gun Presidents will put Anti gun Justices on the bench to decide these cases.

In other words, as soon as Fla finishes tipping Blue, the White house is gone, the Supreme Court appointments are gone.

You are assuming a lot in this case...such as that justices always do what the appointing Presidents want. They don't If it were true, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned about 1996. There is also a very strong precedent that the SCOTUS very rarely overturns ITSELF regardless of make up. When you find some examples of them doing it,,,post them please

The right to bear arms has been settled as an individual right that applies to the Feds and States. I do not see that being overturned as the result of an election in Florida.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I agree with you. I'm just telling you what the form says. The form needs to be changed.

Exactly.

Who writes the form? BATFE. Who controls BATFE? Obama and Eric Holder. Think it will change?

Of course not. So you do an end around, you use the constitution and the separation of powers to FORCE what is right. Imagine if blacks waited for legislation or changes to state laws so they can sit in any seat on the bus. Ridiculous. Why would we wait for a pissant President to protect our rights?

Obama doesn't like it. But that is another reason to do it.

http://news.yahoo.com/barack-obama-imperial-president-182313136.html

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

eh - it went up the food chain.

Going UP the food chain takes time.

County Court, State Court, Appeals Court, Federal District Court, Appeals Court, etc etc ...

Exactly. And a swift "win" in one of those other courts is not what is desired. SCOTUS is desired and that takes time...but it is FINAL amd applies to everyone.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Swift justice.... No such thing. this is why many anti-gun laws are being passed on the state level.Look at NY state they pass the safe act in the middle of the night because the governor wants to run for president and It will take years for it to be challenged in the courts.

Swift is not always good. I was actually disappointed with the 7th circuit "win" that FORCED Illinois to issue CC licenses AND honor all other states licenses. Why disappointed? Because it applies ONLY to the 7th circuit appeals jurisdiction and IL was the only state in that district that didn't already do this.

The government (IL) initially appealed the case and then withdrew the appeal. Why? Because CA, NY, NJ, MA and HI demanded they STFU! Since we "won" there is nothing for us to appeal to the SCOTUS and Rahm Emanuel and Gov. Ryan were told to STFU and fall on their sword lest the ruling be applied to the entire USA. Dammit.

When laws such as NY's are finally challenged...and they are now being challenged in many ways, the laws will finally be struck down. In fact, this case MAY result in a decision that strikes down the "Safe Act" by striking down arbitrary restrictions which can be applied to such things as bans on cosmetic features of firearms. There are about 9000 ways to skin this cat. There are challenges right now working their way through different levels of the court system which would strike down NY's law as well as others. That is WHY you want it going to SCOTUS.

There is a calculated plan to restore firearms rights. It is working quite well. Each case builds on the last. Each case affects broader and broader interpretations of laws. Hundreds of laws have been struck down already by the previous decisions. "Assault Weapons" bans will be addressed but maybe not directly by that "name"...it is not necessary to do so.

The purpose of the law is to stop legal buyers from buying for illegals or criminals who can't pass a background check. If this guy bought for his uncle as a gift, there would not be a case at all. If his uncle paid him back for the "gift", it doesn't really change the fact that both are legal to own the gun. It was done to save money for a family member, NOT to put a gun in the hands of an illegal.

What happened to "swift justice"? He bought it back in 2009, and it's just now going before the supreme court this summer.

I will be pleased when the result is FINAL and applies to everyone. Expect it before June.

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/22/supreme-court-abramski-decision-will-determine-oba/?page=2

The assistant to the solicitor general, Joseph Palmore, admitted to the court that the ATF was “interpreting” the will of Congress when it added the “actual buyer” question in 1995 on the background form.

Mr. Palmore said the other “critical” purposes of the ATF’s agenda with determining the final buyer was “tracing of firearms and to prevent the anonymous stockpiling of firearms.” Uncle Sam is not supposed to be getting involved in a citizen’s decision to buy as many guns as he decides he wants to defend himself.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to side with the plaintiff’s position that the ATF had overstepped into trying to create criminal law. Referring to the Gun Control Act, the chief justice said, “This language is fought over tooth and nail by people on the gun-control side and the gun-ownership side.”

He called it “very problematic” for the government to cite going after law abiding people who resell firearms as a purpose of the law since “there are no words in the statute that have anything to do with straw purchasers.”

Mr. Obama and his gun-grabbing cohorts invented the vanilla-sounding “universal background check” to disguise their agenda to control every firearm transaction in the country.

Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told reporters last week that if Abramski is overturned, it would “open a vast loophole in the background check law.” That is pure fear-mongering to coerce people into willingly give up their rights.

Mr. Abramski, a former police officer, bought the firearm in his home state of Virginia in 2009 because he could get a good price as former law enforcement.

His uncle, Angel Alvarez, sent a check for $400 with the note “Glock 19 handgun” in the memo line. Mr. Abramski called three licensed firearms dealers in advance to ensure he did the transaction lawfully.

At the store, Mr. Abramski filled out the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) background check form No. 4473. Question 11a reads: “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?”

Mr. Abramski checked the “yes” box. If he had checked “no,” he would not have been allowed to buy the gun. He passed the National Instant Background Check (NICS) and left the store with the pistol.

The next day, Mr. Abramski met his uncle at a gun dealer in Pennsylvania. Mr. Alvarez filled out the same NICS background check and passed. The two men filled out forms with the dealer to transfer ownership of the firearm.

No crime was committed with this firearm, but the ATF charged Mr. Abramski for perjuring himself on the background check for saying he was the “actual buyer.” The feds also charged him with not telling the first dealer that he planned to give the gun to his uncle.

Justice Antonin Scalia was the most ardent in pointing out that the government was out of bounds in its pursuit of Mr. Abramski.

“What about somebody who is qualified to own a firearm? Can I take a firearm that I own and say, ‘You know, it’s yours?’” Justice Scalia asked the plaintiff’s attorney, who confirmed that it was lawful.

He continued, “Don’t have to register it? I don’t have to go through a firearm dealer, right? It’s my gun, and I can give it to somebody else who’s qualified.”

The federal government is deliberately twisting the intent of a congressional statute to lure more people into its web.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was intended to stop prohibited people —such as felons, drug users, the severely mentally ill and domestic abusers — from getting firearms. Congress deliberately did not attempt to control transfers between people who are lawfully allowed to have a gun.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/22/supreme-court-abramski-decision-will-determine-oba/?page=1#ixzz2rbdKVyh5
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter