Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

The Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear the case of a Virginia man who bought a gun for his uncle and was then convicted of committing a “straw purchase.” The high court will determine whether it is a crime to buy a gun with the intent to resell to another lawful person.

Arguments for Abramski v. United States will take place in January. Bruce Abramski, a retired police officer, bought a handgun for his elderly uncle because he could get it at discount as former law enforcement. Mr. Abramski checked the box on the federal background check form that said he was the “actual buyer.”

After buying the firearm, Mr. Abramski drove to his uncle’s hometown and met him at a gun store. Together, they filled out the paperwork to resell the gun. Mr. Abramski’s uncle filled out the federal background check forms and the transfer was approved. However, ATF pursued the case against Mr. Abramski for saying he was the “actual buyer” in the original sale.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2hoign9PR

I just re-read this story and I don;t see where anything illegal was done. These guys seem to have handled this transaction to the letter of the law.

Guy buys firearm at a gun store and passes background check.

Guy takes new gun to his uncle's city where they both go into a local gun shop where the uncle filled out a 4473 and passed a background check.

Transfer was approved.

ATF goes after the first guy for buying the gun "with intent to sell it to someone else".

Regardless of intent, both men passed a background check after filling out separate 4473 forms in two completely separate transactions. So where's the problem here?

Well, letter of the law aside ("actual buyer" to the ATF means you intend to keep it), you'd think they'd have better things to spend prosecutor hours on, given all of the illegal gun purchases happening all over the country in back alleys and outside gun shows.

Really, though, this is a terrible test case for the ATF. If they do uphold the conviction, what lesson does that provide? Hide the second transaction? Because that's better for everyone.... How long does it take? If he'd waited a day before the transfer? Two weeks? Bought it, tried to put it in his holster, found it didn't fit and sold it to his uncle who "just happened" to want one?

And a retired cop selling to his uncle.... Geez. Even if they win I don't see how this helps them.

I don’t know if there is any law on the point of what “actual buyer” means or not. If that’s what the actual statute says, it is a sh!tty piece of drafting unless the statute also defines actual buyer as “person who bought and intends to keep rather than transfer the firearm to another”. But the plain English meaning of the language would seem to admit of the interpretation that if you buy it you are the actual buyer whatever you intend to do with it. But if you go down that road it leads inexorably to hairsplitting, though, because that leads to whether you are the actual buyer if the person you eventually transfer it to is standing there beside you telling you “buy that one” and handing you the money to pay for it. It really comes back to intent; and the intent here was to transfer to another. The legislative intent of the statute was surely to keep people from evading the federal paperwork and background checks by using a straw man. They didn’t do any of that and apparently didn’t intend to do it. But the guy did buy the gun intending to immediately transfer it to another. So the real problem here is that the law was written poorly and does not cover this situation. They sort of outlawed the wrong conduct. I doubt that the feds would embrace the concept of leniency for those with a pure heart and an empty head. It is a really crummy thing for the feds to have pursued this case. It is a case that will (or at least might) produce bad law just about no matter what happens. I’ve been told it is OK to buy a gun intending to make a gift of it. Based on what we’ve seen here so far, if I did that I’d never admit it.

ATF 4473 question 11.a.:
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 way I see it - he did buy it for someone else, but the fact that his uncle filled out his own 4473 and passed a bg check nullifies it. i.e., his transaction ended where his uncle's transaction began.

If this guy is convicted, then that means every person that has ever purchased from an FFL and subsequently sold that firearm through a private sale is just as guilty. Very very slippery slope this could be.

My girlfriend purchased a gun as a gift for her father. I told her to NEVER mention to the salesperson what her intentions were. Before setting foot in the store, she made herself get in the mindset that she was shopping for herself, even though she's 5'5" and was looking at a full size CZ 75

allingeneral wrote:ATF 4473 question 11.a.:
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 way I see it - he did buy it for someone else, but the fact that his uncle filled out his own 4473 and passed a bg check nullifies it. i.e., his transaction ended where his uncle's transaction began.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lord knows I've checked enough of those boxes, but I could not remember exactly what it said. That's what makes this such a sh!tty case. This guy, a retired cop who should have known better, pretty much ignored the language on the 4473 and did exactly what the 4473 said he should not do. That would make it pretty dang hard to claim ignorance. "I didn't know any better" won't wash here unless the guy couldn't read. Whether he thought as you said that the subsequent transfer through an FFL somehow cleansed the original transaction or not, what will count is what the law says and how it is interpreted. I still wonder what the STATUTE actually says. If that language is different from the language the ATF used on the 4473, maybe there's some wiggle room. But in any case, it is an ample demonstration that our feds will use the law to run roughshod over good citizens. Damned shame.

PistolPilot wrote:If this guy is convicted, then that means every person that has ever purchased from an FFL and subsequently sold that firearm through a private sale is just as guilty. Very very slippery slope this could be.

My girlfriend purchased a gun as a gift for her father. I told her to NEVER mention to the salesperson what her intentions were. Before setting foot in the store, she made herself get in the mindset that she was shopping for herself, even though she's 5'5" and was looking at a full size CZ 75

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You just can't buy it intending to transfer it to another. so you have to buy it and decide at some later date that Daddy needs a pistol. Ridiculous, isn't it? Makes me glad I'm a shellfish b@stard who only buys guns for himself.

dorminWS wrote:So the real problem here is that the law was written poorly and does not cover this situation. They sort of outlawed the wrong conduct.

Imagine that.... Not like that's ever ever ever happened before.

Under the Obama regime, justice and logic have nothing to do with anything. This government will use any excuse to persecute (and no, I did not misspell "prosecute") firearms owners.

"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."
......................................................................................
"I didn't acquire this on behalf of another person; I acquired it on my own behalf for the purpose of transferring it though an FFL to a person legally entitled to acquire it."

Nah.....way too cute, I think.
...........................................................................

Maybe the moral of the story is that you should buy the gun for $400 and then RENT it to Uncle ferd for a term of 99 years at a rent of $400, huh?

Nah....still too cute; sham transaction. Interesting question: where is the line between rental and sale on a firearm?

@pistolpilot - as stated, that was a gift; it is different from a straw purchase and perfectly legal.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

GeneFrenkle wrote:@pistolpilot - as stated, that was a gift; it is different from a straw purchase and perfectly legal.

But isn't that the same scenario as what's going before the Supreme Court? The only difference is the paper trail in this case.

Wasn't money involved?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Bah, hard time editing via mobile.

Anyway, as I understand it, the intent was to immediately transfer the firearm. The original purchaser was not the end recipient for this intent, thus the feds are saying straw purchase. Because the aecond transfer occured via ffl, it's a big stretch imo and an attempt to expand the interpretation. Points being money and intent (to bypass legal checks).

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Awesome! Really glad the SC is going to look at this case. Easy win for the 2A, guys. There's no way they can uphold this.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

They should go after this guy. He clearly broke the law and should pay. Now, if his uncle was a Mexican drug lord, he could have just gotten the gun all legit-like from Holder.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

FiremanBob is right. It's simple persecution of firearm owners. The spirit of the law was never meant to apply here.

Next, they dont have the right to infringe regardless. The govt has been allowed too long to get away with illegal infringements like this regulation.

Last, I dont have a lot of faith in our courts these days (heller really flored me in its dicta, regardless the finding of a correct verdict) but there is a chance they'll get it right. Hope JPFO gets involved.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

GeneFrenkle wrote:
@pistolpilot - as stated, that was a gift; it is different from a straw purchase and perfectly legal.
--end quote--

If the cop in op's post had given the gun as a gift instead of selling it, would it have been legal?

If I buy a little pink 22 for my daughter, am I breaking the law?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

From conversations I've heard beyween people filling out 4473 forms, I would have to say YES arlington. People have been told they have to be the end user, and not their child, when filling out the form.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]