Supreme Court weighs gun rights challenge

[Peikko 1,575]

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

Indeed, it's all a dreadful govmint conspiracy to wrest your guns from your grubby little fingers. It's only a matter of time

[Danno 1,228]

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.

I admire your confidence but when the Justices see a social cause they support, they have a way of going around precedent.

For instance, lets suppose the president signed into law a restriction on Ammunition.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Indeed, it's all a dreadful govmint conspiracy to wrest your guns from your grubby little fingers. It's only a matter of time

Laugh all you want. The black helicopters are coming.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Laugh all you want. The black helicopters are coming.

Laugh all you want. The SCOTUS decision is coming.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I admire your confidence but when the Justices see a social cause they support, they have a way of going around precedent.

For instance, lets suppose the president signed into law a restriction on Ammunition.

For instance. Lets look at the facts. NO new Federal Legislation for 20 years. NONE on the way in the forseeable future. Most all Federal legislation passed since 1968 has been repealed. CC in all 50 states in the last 28 years. Crime rate is DOWN across the country because of increased firearms freedoms and CC. Heller and McDonald decisions 2008 and 2010. 7th circuit court of appeals decision in 2012. We will have this decision in 2014 which will be used to go far beyond the "question of the question" Did you know that the import of "assault weapons" is banned because of BATFE "regulation"...NOT by law? What do you think will happen when this decision clarifies that BATFE cannot make such regulations? This is going to be as big as Heller and McDonald.

Incidents of the Supreme Court overruling the Supreme court are exceedingly rare. You think there is going to be a court that rules the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right? Why? Because a President changes a justice our two? Remember that David Souter was supposed to be "conservative" and Kennedy was supposed to be "liberal".

Obviously the plan has worked and will work. Danno, I think you can find something else to worry about. Gays or something

[Danno 1,228]

For instance. Lets look at the facts. NO new Federal Legislation for 20 years. NONE on the way in the forseeable future. Most all Federal legislation passed since 1968 has been repealed. CC in all 50 states in the last 28 years. Crime rate is DOWN across the country because of increased firearms freedoms and CC. Heller and McDonald decisions 2008 and 2010. 7th circuit court of appeals decision in 2012. We will have this decision in 2014 which will be used to go far beyond the "question of the question" Did you know that the import of "assault weapons" is banned because of BATFE "regulation"...NOT by law? What do you think will happen when this decision clarifies that BATFE cannot make such regulations? This is going to be as big as Heller and McDonald.

Incidents of the Supreme Court overruling the Supreme court are exceedingly rare. You think there is going to be a court that rules the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right? Why? Because a President changes a justice our two? Remember that David Souter was supposed to be "conservative" and Kennedy was supposed to be "liberal".

Obviously the plan has worked and will work. Danno, I think you can find something else to worry about. Gays or something

Bother, your reasoning is like playing the stock market looking at last years performance.

I already pointed out that a huge change is coming as it gets more and more unlikely to put a conservative in the White House and that will mean the Supreme Court will tilt dramatically Left.

So lets play out my theory and then you reply back as I hope you can change my mind.

-Right now if the demographics of grade schoolers TX or florida were of voting age, they would both be Blue States. (Knowing what we do about voting patterns)

-It only takes one of those states to tip blue (as California has already) to remove any likelihood of a gun supporter to be elected president.

-Due to the mass immigration post 1965 from third world countries, we have been importing people into this country who by large margins... vote LEFT.

-This same group seem to enjoy making bigger families (Another job the white americans don't want to do).

-As the face of America is now rapidly changing from immigration and fertility, looking back to historical elections or Prior Supreme Court patterns is foolish.

-Instead look to California, there in lies our future in so many ways. If the Supreme Court were in the Hands of California today (and soon our future as well) would Gun rights be as secure?

I suggest, The only thing which has prevented flat-out bans and confiscation in CA has been the limits from the US Supreme Court. As that Court looks more Like California, your going to see change BIG TIME.

Q: If the Supreme Court today were made up of justices (all nine) chosen by Obama, Hillary and Chuck Schumer, would your gun rights be as secure?

Demography is destiny.