2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Tom on January 22, 2014, 11:39:55 PM
-
Oral arguments in the Abramski case occurred today at the Supreme Court. This case hasn't made it onto many people's radar, but it is important. In short, can someone who is not prohibited from purchasing a gun, buy one for someone else who is not prohibited from owning one. In this case, Abramski used his police discount to buy a gun for his uncle (who paid him for it). They used FFLs to transfer the gun. So imagine you're off Island and your friend says, "hey, they have that gold plated AK-47 you've been looking for at the store." You tell him to buy it and you'll pay him back. He registers it and then transfers it to you when you get back. Is that illegal? That's what this case is about.
Abramski asserts there is nothing in the GCA that prohibits tis and that ATF is just making up law. Until the 1990s, ATF did not even view this as illegal. Pretty interesting. Emily Miller has good write up on it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/15/miller-supreme-court-decide-if-buying-gun-lawful-p/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/15/miller-supreme-court-decide-if-buying-gun-lawful-p/)
-
It happens all the time!
How did they catch them ?
-
It happens all the time!
How did they catch them ?
It's a weird story. Apparently, someone matching Abramski description committed a robbery. The description gave the police the search warrant and they found some paperwork describing the transaction. Abramksi was cleared on the robbery, but they used the documentation to charge him with straw purchasing. He uncle, brilliantly, wrote Abramski a cheque which said "Glock 19" which was dated before the gun was purchased. Since Abramski answered yes to 11a on the 4473, he was charged with Straw Purchasing.
The Solicitor General was asked today by a justice: Hypothetically, if Abramski bought the gun and walked outside and was then approached by a stranger to sell him the new gun and did, would that be illegal? The government attorney said no.
Update: He is the transcript of the oral arguments for those who are so inclined: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1493_2135.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1493_2135.pdf)
Update #2: NRA-ILA's take on this case: http://www.nraila.org/legal/articles/2014/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-abramski-v-united-states.aspx (http://www.nraila.org/legal/articles/2014/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-abramski-v-united-states.aspx)
-
It happens all the time!
How did they catch them ?
Ordinarily, the ATF has flags raised when a transfer for a gun occurs in VA, then is transferred again very shortly after in PA.
Interstate "trafficking" of firearms is what they watch for. Had the gun been purchased in PA initially, I'm guessing the transfers would have gone unnoticed.
Apparently in this case, that robbery investigation was the impetus.
-
<removed a bunch of extraneous stuff from a late night post>
I believe it was just very bad luck. Poor bastard. That $200 his uncle saved cost hundreds of thousands in legal fees and a world of hurt.