Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

General discussion - Feel free to discuss anything you want here. Firearm related is preferred, but not required
Post Reply
User avatar
ShotgunBlast
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:46:31
Location: Richmond

Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by ShotgunBlast »

The case, Abramski v. United States of America, challenges whether federal law prohibits citizens who legally buy a firearm from a licensed dealer with the intention of then selling that gun to another private citizen who also may legally own and purchase firearms. The Obama administration argues that the citizen who buys and then sells the gun is acting as a “straw purchaser,” which they claim is illegal under several federal statutes.

The States, however, argue that Congress has never passed a federal law that prohibits such purchases. At most, the laws relied on by the United States prohibit private citizens from selling guns to people who are prohibited from owning firearms, such as minors, convicted felons, or people who have been diagnosed as having mental illnesses. It is up to the States and their citizens to decide whether to implement additional regulations on private gun sales.
More background about the case.
The states’ amicus brief is in support of a former Roanoke, Va., police officer, Bruce Abramski, who purchased a gun in 2009 using a law enforcement discount and sold it to his elderly uncle, who lived in Pennsylvania. Both Abramski and his uncle could legally own firearms and made the transaction in accordance with Pennsylvania gun laws, including a background check of the purchaser. However, federal authorities prosecuted Abramski on the grounds that he made false statements on the gun purchase form.
Virginia shows support for these private transactions.
West Virginia is joined in this [amicus] brief by attorneys general representing Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/80415
User avatar
SigmaShooter
Marksman
Marksman
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:17:51
Location: Hampton Roads

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by SigmaShooter »

I wonder what false satement they are pursuing him for? That this purchase is for your own use? So, you can't decide that you don't like a new gun and might want to get something else?
Besides, they even did a background check on his uncle (the private purchaser), so what the hell? Everyone could legally own a firearm. It sounds like an open/shut case. Maybe SCOTUS thought they could bulldoze/intimidate their way thru. :fireright:
I don't WANT to yell at the TV, but the mainstream Liberal Media MAKES ME !!!
User avatar
ShotgunBlast
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:46:31
Location: Richmond

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by ShotgunBlast »

SigmaShooter wrote:I wonder what false satement they are pursuing him for? That this purchase is for your own use? So, you can't decide that you don't like a new gun and might want to get something else?
Besides, they even did a background check on his uncle (the private purchaser), so what the hell? Everyone could legally own a firearm. It sounds like an open/shut case. Maybe SCOTUS thought they could bulldoze/intimidate their way thru. :fireright:
Right.
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.
The government argues that the police officer was purchasing the firearm to get the LEO discount but the real owner will be the other person, but it's up to the government to prove that intent, either through questioning the people or getting ahold of messages between the two parties. So yes, while the guy did make a false statement on the form (according to the government), the purpose of the question is to prohibit straw purchases to people that are disqualified from purchasing firearms. The straw purchase argument should not apply for two people that are qualified to purchase firearms and I hope the SCOTUS sees it like this.
User avatar
Swampman
VGOF Gold Supporter
VGOF Gold Supporter
Posts: 3011
Joined: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:28:22
Location: Warren County

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by Swampman »

Better hope Roberts isn't the deciding vote. :coffee:
Progressives/Liberals - Promoting tyranny and a defenseless people since 1913.
User avatar
Remek
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
Posts: 1065
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:59:57
Location: Fredericksburg, or that is the nearest recognizable locale

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by Remek »

I have no faith at all in SCOTUS. in recent years their decisions have become worse and worse, ashewing real logic in favor of what they want. The fact is that NICS checks, while not so bad in idea, are unconstitutional. The only people who should be on the system as red flags are those who lose their constitutional right to keep and bear arms by way of jury decision. If they want it otherwise, they should stick to amending the constitution.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Taggure
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:43:59

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by Taggure »

Did anyone hear how this turned out ?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
SAEPE EXPERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATRES AETERNI
(Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever)
User avatar
Taggure
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:43:59

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by Taggure »

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
SAEPE EXPERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATRES AETERNI
(Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever)
User avatar
Remek
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
Posts: 1065
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:59:57
Location: Fredericksburg, or that is the nearest recognizable locale

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by Remek »

Wish I knew better the tone. But it sounds to me like they are spank abramski.

When the court is hard on you they usually rule for you. In this second-hand reading I am seeing they appear to more hard on the govt. Makes me worried, and annoyed that logic doesn't matter anymore, they just decide a line of logic to go with what they feel.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
User avatar
Remek
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
Posts: 1065
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:59:57
Location: Fredericksburg, or that is the nearest recognizable locale

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by Remek »

We should modify the Supreme Court and make them subservient to a jury of 12 who they must argue their logic to, in order to get a decision.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Taggure
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:43:59

Re: Abramski v. United States SCOTUS Oral Arguments Today 1/22

Post by Taggure »

I just finished reading it and I am not sure which way it will go. The one thing that I got from it was that the law was very poorly worded. I thought that this was interesting though
It also turned out to be a problem for Palmore that the government’s gun-regulating agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, had previously interpreted the law in much the same way as Dietz suggested it should be read now. Although Palmore said the interpretation had changed twenty years ago, that did not keep the Justices from bringing up the prior position several times.
So who knows where they will go with this
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
SAEPE EXPERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATRES AETERNI
(Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever)
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”