Abramski v U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[2ndsojourn]

Can we talk a bit about the dissenting opinion?

I'm no legal scholar, but to me, the clarifications in the instructions on the form 4473 are clear about who the actual purchaser is and who is not. During the trial(s) at the lower levels it can be argued (successfully or not) that the parties complied with the intent of the law, being that neither was a prohibited person. Maybe this was argued and maybe it wasn't, I don't know. And maybe a reasonable jury would've been allowed to find him not guilty.

But once the case gets to the SCOTUS level, aren't we past that? Or can SCOTUS rule that the intent was followed even though it's clear on the 4473 what's allowed? If the law is clear (although a bit flawed), it is the law and SCOTUS is required to follow it unless it's been deemed unconstitutional...right?

(Note: If I was on the jury at the lower level I'd have found him not guilty but I'm sure some judge would insist otherwise in his jury instructions.)

 

[JimDandy]

I think they can find that sort of thing, but they won't/didn't. A final decision from the Supreme Court is pretty rare I think. Normally they rule on a point of law, and it goes back to the lower courts (or legislative body) to either continue, retry the case(rewrite the legislation), or drop it.

To the best of my layman's knowledge, the Supreme Court has only delivered a criminal court verdict once, and they tried the whole case as well. I know of it, but not as well as the people who study this stuff for a living. Some sort of homicide case a local CLEO (I think Sheriff but I'm not sure) and racial or labor union tensions.

Edit to Add: Did some checking and found this page about the case I was talking about. The Shipp trial.

 

[Tom Servo]

I cannot find a definition for "straw purchasing" in law or regulation, and the ATF's definition of "straw purchasing" seems to change through administrative discretion, rather than the legislative or regulatory processes.

That is correct. According to §922(a)(6), it is unlawful to,

knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter

Congress has delegated the authority to interpret that (and any other part of the GCA) to the ATF. This is the ATF's current interpretation. The phrase "straw purchase" is their own application.

For a long time, the idea was that a straw purchase was one made on behalf of a disqualified individual. In 1992, they changed that [pdf] to include any purchase in which the person filling out the form was not the "actual buyer."

 

[publius42]

The problem here was created by the fact that the "actual buyer" would not get a police discount if he actually bought his gun like a normal person.

I think uncle and nephew are wrong for fraudulently trying to confer a police benefit on a person who is not a cop.

 

[jimpeel]

Hadn't actually thought of it that way. It is a fraud.

If I did that where I work I would be fired as it is considered a fraud against my employer to use my discount for other than myself, wife, or children.