SCOTUS today upheld (by a 5-4 decision) the conviction of Abramski as a "straw purchaser", who purchased a firearm with the intent to transfer it to his uncle, and did a fully legal transfer through an FFL including 4473 and a background check on the uncle, a former NYPD officer.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/robert-farago/breaking-u-s-supreme-court-upholds-straw-purchaser-law-provisions/#more-324539

Full opinion here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abramski-v-united-states/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

Since "swing vote" Kennedy sided with the 4 "liberal" justices on this case, which seems of extremely minor import compared to the recent cases regarding concealed carry that the court has not granted cert to, I'm speculating that this decision might add more weight to the speculation that a possible reason that Drake v Jeregian (re concealed carry license issuance "discretion" (aka "may issue") wherein "self-defense" is inadequate reason for issuance) was held over several weeks before being denied cert was that Kennedy has perhaps gotten off the fence and is now firmly on the side of the, uh, justices who don't hold a high opinion of civilian firearm ownership and use. This would not be good news in the event Peruta ever makes its way to SCOTUS, where a firm 5-4 anti-gun/carry SCOTUS majority would refuse cert if Peruta is overturned by a Ninth Circuit en banc ruling, or grant cert and overturn Peruta if it is upheld in the Ninth and appealed to SCOTUS by the loser. We're a long long way from Peruta being up before SCOTUS, but it makes one wonder, and not in a good way.

A couple of other brief articles, including some comments about Scalia's dissenting opinion:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140616/NATION/306160059/1361/Supreme-Court--Law-doesn-t-allow--straw-purchaser--to-buy-gun-for-someone-else

http://bearingarms.com/split-supreme-court-rules-gun-owners-purchase-firearms-gifts-felons/

Added at 6 PM 6.16.14:

Ken Klukowski, Breitbart News legal editor, gives his take on why this isn't a good decision on the NRA News show: http://www.nranews.com/cam/list/cam-company of June 16, 2014

Added 8 AM Tuesday, 6.17.14:

Legal scholar and Constitutional attorney Steven Holbrook on the NRA News Sportsman Channel show on 6.16.14. Discusses the "convoluted language" of the Abramski decision and at the 5:30 mark of the interview discusses what it might mean re Peruta or any concealed carry case that might request cert from SCOTUS. His short answer: "No one knows. It's pure speculation." But then goes to state the "probably 4-4 on concealed carry and no one even on the court knows how that 5th justice (aka Kennedy) would vote on the CCW issue as per Peruta".
http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/steve-halbrook-supreme-court-gun-decision-a-linguistic-mess/list/sportsman-channel-videos

One thing that seems to have been overlooked in this case by many of the commentators on the TTAG post linked above is that Abramski lied on his 4473, and he even admitted as such, twice. His lawyers argued that the lie was not material because the uncle went to an FFL and completed the 4473. The Court disagreed, and held that the admitted lie was material. The takeaway — you can’t “cure” the lie no matter what you do. This case should have been more about Abramski committing perjury than the "straw purchaser" angle, but it is what it is.

I fully concur with your take about Kennedy (a member of the Heller 5) switching away from a pro-2A perspective. Not good news for us, especially in any future attempts to get AW bans, magazine capacity restrictions, or CCW laws overturned.