Supreme Court Rules on “Straw Man” Gun Sales Case

Send to Kindle

Supreme CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the government can enforce the “Straw Man” sale rule even when the person a gun is being bought for is lawfully allowed to own a firearm. Several different Federal Circuit courts had previously ruled on both sides of this issue, prompting the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, adopted a narrow interpretation of the law, saying the “actual transferee/buyer” must acknowledge that he intends to resell the gun when he buys it, even if the eventual owner is legally entitled to own a gun.

The case involves Bruce Abramski, a former police officer who bought a gun for his uncle, taking advantage of a discount price offered to active and former police officers. Although he made it clear to the dealer that he was buying the gun for his uncle, Abramski checked the box on the ATF form indicating that he was the actual buyer. He bought the gun in Virginia and went to visit his uncle in Pennsylvania, where they went to a gun dealer to complete the transfer and where his uncle passed the firearms check. Abramski was convicted of making false statements on BATFE Form 4473

Abramski appealed on the grounds that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was not intended to restrict transfers between law-abiding individuals and that the question on Form 4473 was illegal. He claimed that the Straw Sale provision only applies when the ultimate buyer of the gun is someone who could not himself legally buy a gun. Based on this ruling, the “Straw Man” sale rule means that no one may ever lawfully buy a gun for another person.

{ 74 comments… add one }
  • Sam June 16, 2017, 10:31 am

    OK, I’m confused. In the original news story about this case, The check turned up in the house of the officer in a search, after he was accused of something. The date on the check pre-dated the purchase of the firearm. It makes no sense that he would have the canceled check, since it would be returned to the Uncle from his bank. Unless it was never cashed, and he decided to ‘gift’ the gun, after all, which seems to be a legal gift. Now I read here that the check was dated AFTER the sale, which seems to be a legal re-sale. Ahh, ya gotta love the information superhighway. Maybe Al Gore really did invent it.

  • Kris June 9, 2017, 12:32 pm

    What is really unfortunate here is that 2 otherwise law-abiding citizens got tangled up in this mess over what probably amounted to trying to save $50 or maybe as much as $200 for a relative. Even more of a pity that these two fellas didn’t do this the right way and exchange CASH, NOT A CHECK and do it AFTER THE ORIGINAL purchase rather than BEFORE. But SCOTUS made it’s ruling and that’s that. What needs to happen here is that the wording on the straw-man question should be changed. And that doesn’t take Congress. Just takes BATFE to change the wording. A few strokes on a keyboard. Keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals is a laudable goal that I don’t think many here would object to. And I am sure that that was the intention of this straw-man question. But as the saying goes…”The devil is in the details” If somebody want to try to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, the thing to do is write BATFE and encourage them to change the wording on the straw man question.

  • Paul Skvorc February 3, 2017, 11:29 am

    Actually, the 4473 form violates the 10th amendment, rendering EVERY WORD OF IT in violation of the constitution.

    Paul

  • Powder Burns July 16, 2016, 10:29 pm

    After reading through these comments, I’ve come to the infomed opinion that most you people are friggin moron’s and are to friggin stupid to own firearms. Good grief…

    • fred fuddlebutter September 3, 2016, 6:38 pm

      After reading your illiterate comment, i am certain you are the idiot that should not own firearms or reproduce.p,s, opinion are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink, hows that for your informed opinion? powder burned!!

    • Pot calling Kettle February 3, 2017, 2:01 pm

      Too, not “to.” If you were smarter you’d know that.

    • Chris H March 24, 2017, 7:39 am

      YEP….and SOME of the are “too” stupid to use the correct spelling/form of the word” too”. It is usually the ones complaining about the stupidity of others that are about as smart as a sack of hair.

  • Phillip Whitehead July 16, 2016, 1:22 am

    As an FFL holder and a former Federal Law Enforcement Officer, I am appalled that ATF even brought this case. The verbiage on this form does not give you any option but to state that at “the moment of purchase”, you are the buyer. It cannot possibly predict, nor can the buyer, how long they plan to keep a particular firearm. The strict wording only allows you to state that at the ” time of purchase”, you are the buyer, which is the truth. What you choose to do with it days, weeks, or months later is, and should be your choice. The Government should be ashamed of itself for bringing this case.

    • B. Johnson February 20, 2017, 11:45 am

      He didn’t buy the pistol and then resell it. His uncle was not eligible for the discount and he bought it knowing full well his uncle intended on giving him the money for it. That is the precise definition of a straw purchase. I can’t give somebody $500 and ask them to go buy a gun for me that’s illegal. Yes once you make a purchase the gun is yours and you are free to resell it as you wish. The nephew never had any intention on keeping the gun it was always going to the uncle and he was going to be repaid for it. This was not a buy and then a resale, nor was it a gift. By the letter of the law it was illegal.

  • H T Jeffers September 2, 2014, 6:53 pm

    So many missed the point on this subject of straw sales. The officer lied when he filed the paper when he marked the form HE was the person he was buying for. All he needed do was buy the gun , keep your mouth shout, wait ninty days and legally sell/transfer the gun to the uncle. When you lie on paper and tell everyone, ATF will make an example of you.

    • Phillip Whitehead July 16, 2016, 1:09 am

      The verbiage on the form does not give you the ability to state without reservation, that you will never give up ownership of the firearm. At the moment of purchase, you ARE the person who is buying the firearm. There is absolutely no possible way for any person to confirm or predict how long they will open or will want to keep a certain firearm. Being a licensed FFL holder, I am very careful to explain these things to my customers. The Officer was very badly treated by the system, as it was a poorly worded GOVERNMENT FORM that allowed his situation to be created. There was no intent to deceive. The Government should be ASHAMED of itself for even bringing this case. As a former Federal Law Enforcement Officer as well, it is beyond my belief that ATF would trap anyone with such trash.

  • dink winkerson June 24, 2014, 10:14 am

    It’s illegal that it’s Illegal. These are unconstitutional laws, therefor, Illegal laws.

  • Les Williamson June 23, 2014, 7:09 pm

    I suppose this also means you cannot buy a gun for a younger person as a Christmas gift like buying your son his first 22. He is not old enough to purchase it himself so you have to retain possession of the weapon until he is of age and event then you cannot give it to him. So all the men folk in my family are now criminals for having bought their sons 22 rifles. God you have to love American land of the free and home of the mentally insane.

    • Paul Decker September 9, 2016, 9:44 pm

      If you read the form, you are allowed to buy a gun as a gift, so your comment here is showing you have no idea what you are talking about. This cop used his privilege to purchase a tax free gun for police use and transferred it to his uncle. He did lie on the form, and even told the dealer that he was lieing on the form.

  • steve roach June 23, 2014, 6:11 pm

    When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same-State” residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

    There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact State Police units or the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such requirements.
    Please note that if a private person wants to obtain a firearm from a private person who resides in another State, the firearm will have to be shipped to an FFL in the buyer’s State. The FFL will be responsible for record keeping. See also Question B3.

    http://www.atf.gov/faq-page#t386n13091

    This is straight from the atf website. There is also an exemplar of a bill of sale for transfers between individuals.
    It seems the someone from another state, being prohibited from buying across state lines, is the issue here–not the transfer itself.

    Shooter

  • jl s June 23, 2014, 4:02 pm

    What we need are a bunch of oldsters to all at once confess and insist on being locked up and let them take over your health care. We can break the back of this in a year.

  • GT June 23, 2014, 2:23 pm

    On form 4473, question 11.a. asks, “Are you the actual transferee/buyer …” Plus it says, “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.”

    However there are exceptions. “If you are picking up a repaired firearm for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a…”

    Also in the instructions for question 11.a. it says, “You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.”

    The instructions state two examples. The first is: “Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is not the actual transferee/buyer…”

    The second example is: “However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer.”

    So it appears that you can give a firearm as a gift, which appears to mean there is no money in the exchange.

    And in all cases, “… you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited…”

    One thing that is not clear to me in the examples is what happens if Mr. Smith gave Mr. Jones the money after the transfer. Is that okay?

    My personal belief is that the intent of the law is to keep people from buying firearms for those who are prohibited from buying or possessing them. But looking at the ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, 2005, chapter 15. Straw Purchases, page 165, it says, “It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee’s business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.”

    It would have been nice if the court ruled that the Straw Sale provision only applied when the ultimate buyer was a prohibited person. But anyway, this case also shows that even law enforcement people appear to not know all of the nooks and crannies of the maze of firearm laws.

  • G AN June 23, 2014, 1:07 pm

    AHH-HA! I See! Without BATF expressed permission, EVERYTHING is illegal, and NOTHING is illegal with it. That explains this, and Fast and Furious in 2010, also.

  • Mr. Smith June 23, 2014, 12:25 pm

    I have a friend and every time he hears of some injustice or infringement he simply says, “There’s a storm coming.”

    For the longest time I thought yeah, well, that doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion today. We need answers for today! Now I think I understand what he was saying. Therefore all I have to say is this:

    There’s a storm coming.

    Smith

    • Paul Skvorc February 3, 2017, 11:33 am

      Do I know you? I’ve been saying that for a couple of years. Trump’s election isn’t a “good” sign. It’s a sign that “there is a storm coming”.

      Paul

  • WilliamDahl June 23, 2014, 12:00 pm

    It doesn’t matter what the SCOTUS says, if it contradicts “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, then it is total BS. The ATF goons should be brought up on treason charges since their entire purpose is to infringe upon our 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights.

    • DWK June 23, 2014, 3:49 pm

      The entire Congress, Senate and the Executive Branch should be brought up on charges of treason! The bulk of them signed the NDAA, which is completely against the US Constitution! How about the low life cops killing innocent people without reason? Would a reasonable person feel this is wrong? How about being sexually assaulted at the airport?
      As long as the aforementioned crap is allowed to be done by the citizens, they will continue to tighten the noose!

  • Sandman June 23, 2014, 11:55 am

    What happens lets say ,I buy my wife and myself two AR-15s or better yet I buy myself the 2 ARs .Then I decide I(we) don’t need 2 of them and decide to sell on of them.
    I live in a state where you can LEGALY sell to a private party WITHOUT doing an FFL background check. Then I have a favorite uncle who visits from another state and I GIVE or SELL the extra one to him????
    Would I be prosecuted?
    How long do you have to hold onto a gun before you sell it and it not be a straw purchase?
    What if you find a killer deal on a gun and you buy it with INTENT to sell it later for a profit?

  • 2A Supporter June 23, 2014, 11:33 am

    Straight from Page 6 of Form 4473 on ATF website. It pays to read instructions folks. This isn’t a conspiracy.

    https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

    “Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer:
    For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or
    Otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUALTRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS-FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.”

    It’s almost ridiculous to think this went all the way to the SCOTUS to begin with. Nothing but a “show” trial.

    • Bill June 23, 2014, 3:36 pm

      Thanks for the link. If most of the commentators here would actually READ the 4473 they shouldn’t have any questions.
      The case was a slam dunk. The ruling was totally unnecessary as was the initial filing of the case in the first place. The 4473 is one of the few gov’t docs that does not allow very much wiggle room or interpretation. Just a knowledge of the ability to read English language.

  • Dave June 23, 2014, 11:31 am

    If you by the gun from a dealer and fill out the ffl, you can at that point sell the gun without any paperwork. Why would I want to tell the government anything if not required.

  • Dave Hernandez June 23, 2014, 11:23 am

    “adopted a narrow interpretation of the law, saying the “actual transferee/buyer” must acknowledge that he intends to resell the gun when he buys it, …. The case involves Bruce Abramski, a former police officer who bought a gun for his uncle, taking advantage of a discount price offered to active and former police officers. ”

    Umm… no. That is not what happened. Abramski’s uncle gave him money prior to the purchase to obtain the firearm for him (the uncle). The check given to Abramski even had it annotated in the memo block, stating it was for a Glock. So, this was not a case of a purchase and re-sale, not was it a case of a gift. It was, quite clearly, a strawman purchase as the law has defined them for decades.

    Had Abramski bought the pistol and then his uncle were to have bought it from him, with the money between them changing hands AFTER the purchase from the dealer, then it would have been a simple case of re-sale and would have been legal. Had Abramski bought the pistol and simply given it to his uncle, it would have been a simple case of gifting and would have been legal. At the core of the issue was the check, the memo on it, and the date of the check being before the purchase from the dealer.

  • SGT Clyde Walls US Army Retired June 23, 2014, 9:18 am

    My wife wanted to surprise me with a Savage .22 bolt action rifle for Christmas a few years back. She did as is suggested here and paid for the rifle and then I went in and filled out the 4473 and with my WCP I did not have to do the background check as my Weapons Carry Permit took place of that. This is the way to do it and be 100% legal so nothing comes back to cause you any problems.

    • Muhjesbude June 23, 2014, 11:26 am

      Yeah, Sarge, (Glad you ‘retired’. I’d boot your ass out of my platoon) and then make sure you take your son or daughter in to the FFL dealer when you want to give them one of your guns. Do all you can to help them destroy your right to private property exchange. Next it’ll be that nice bayonet/hunting knife collections.

      Yup, “that’s the only way to do it”… For government suck hole sheeple.

      What are you going to say when your kid or grandchild someday asks you, ‘What was the 2nd Amendment about, Grandpa?”

      Shame on you.

      • JCitizen June 23, 2014, 6:59 pm

        I don’t know – Muhjesbude – I’m not sure we will win any converts by beating up on people – not that many folks are cognizant of the law, or aware of their rights. Friendly persuasion and education is more effective in my book. If I run into a troll who I know is obviously on the wrong side of the issue, then all bets are off. Have a good day sir.

  • MB June 23, 2014, 9:14 am

    Is it now against the law to buy a gun as a gift? If I bought a gun as a gift for my son is that now against the law?

  • MB June 23, 2014, 9:12 am

    What if I wanted to buy a gun as a gift for my son? Is this now against the law?

  • MB June 23, 2014, 9:11 am

    What if I wanted to buy a gun as a gift for my son? Is this now against the law?

    • Antonio Contreras June 23, 2014, 5:29 pm

      With all due respect, can you not bother to read the opinion or the explanation above?

  • Dave June 23, 2014, 8:56 am

    This ruling is absolutely ridiculous. EVERY firearm is purchased/owned only for a short period of time and, if cared for properly, will eventually be sold or passed on to someone else. Is the court saying that if you purchase a firearm and check the “buying for myself” box on the transfer form then you must die before you can transfer/sell it to another individual? The court is wrong on this one. As long as the recipient passes the background check, the “law” should not have a problem with this deal.

  • Allen June 23, 2014, 8:55 am

    The interpretation by the reporter is a bit alarmist in nature. The statement ‘ Based on this ruling, the “Straw Man” sale rule means that no one may ever lawfully buy a gun for another person.’ is false,and not the way retailers are interpreting the ruling. The 4473 clearly states in instruction 11.a ‘You are also the actual Transferee/Buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.’ That instruction has not changed!
    Purchasing a firearm as a proxy for another (qualified buyer or not) has NEVER been OK.

    • Muhjesbude June 25, 2014, 12:47 pm

      arny, Good thinking. Lot of smart people on this forum.

      Except for one thing.

      This is YOUR way of ‘thinking’. But NOT necessarily the ‘thinking’ or ‘interpretation’ of BATF, who will ultimately be the ‘last word’ on the situation.

      Unless the SCROTE-US has exclusions similar to your statements, in their decision here, then all interpretations by the BATF of the ‘transfers’ will be based on the subjective analysis of each case.

      I don’t think a lot of people even here understand exactly what that means. Most of you LEO’s probably do. It’s WAY too much ‘discretionary’ power. Just like the recent ‘change of mind’ over certain ‘parts’ all by themselves now constituting an illegal NFA firearm even if they’re not even in the same location of any firearms?

      But why are we even wasting our time trying to ‘beat the system’ incrementally?

      We are “WE The PEOPLE”! How’d we even let them get away with making all these draconian self serving tyrannical laws anyway?

      More importantly, why don’t when we fire them in a few months, just make our NEW employees reverse and eliminate all these Unconstitutional laws?

      Because otherwise They are still beating us by ‘Law-ing’ us to death!

  • Antonio Contreras June 23, 2014, 8:51 am

    First, read the actual opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

    The case did not involve a gift, not by any stretch of imagination. The uncle from PA wanted to buy the gun from VA using his nephew’s LEO discount. The uncle PAID the nephew for the gun BEFORE the nephew bought it, and they gave each other receipts for the money; even the check had a note as to what the $400 were for. Talk about a gift!

    The uncle may have been able to purchase the gun in PA, but not in VA (at least not without an FFL-to-FFL transfer) and both the uncle and the nephew knew it. In fact, I would say that in their hurry to save money, they figured this would be a way to save shipping and transfer costs too. There is *nothing* in the SCOTUS opinion that indicates that there was a second transfer in PA; in fact, that would have taken the wind right out of the court’s argument (see pg 19). The court also assumes that the uncle would have been able to purchase the gun in PA, but doesn’t state that he did in fact pass a check for that firearm. I have yet to read the appeal decision to see if it was brought up there.

    So no folks, this does not affect true gifts which are, in fact, explicitly covered on the form AND in the court’s opinion: if you buy a firearm FROM A DEALER intending to give it as a gift, then you are the buyer. But if you are really the middleman AT A DEALER, and the real buyer is another person who is paying you for the firearm, pack your toothbrush and go join club fed.

    Lastly, the court went to sufficient length to distinguish sales at dealers from private (or as they say secondary market) sales. So don’t go fretting needlessly about, well, all the silly examples above. Everything remains as it was before (unless, of course, you are in a habit of making straw purchases or selling/giving weapons to people you know are not able to legally possess them–inelegible.)

    • Bill June 23, 2014, 3:22 pm

      EXACTLY.

      • Muhjesbude June 25, 2014, 1:24 pm

        Sorry, but NOPE. It is NOT the same anymore. Your last sentence kind of answered it for me. It’s complicated but it gives BATF another highly subjective tool to harass people.

        Let me try to put like this:. Since the entire ‘straw purchase law’ was to keep someone ‘Not otherwise ‘legally’ able to purchase from an FFL dealer’, This was clearly NOT the issue here. The buyer knew the secondary transferee was not prohibited.

        When ‘YOU’ complete the physical movement/action of buying something then no matter what you do with the specific item after that, you are correctly checking the box indicating that ‘YOU are buying it’. It’s a completed act. What your state of mind was or is immediately afterward is not and can’t be a ‘legal’ enforcement. That’s ‘mind control’!

        Somehow the actual transaction of buying a gun is now ‘morphed’ by this ruling into the transaction now being ‘flexible’ enough to include virtually ANY secondary sale being potentially declared a straw purchase? Think about it. There’s now a ‘presumption’ of guilt before anything else.

        In other words, now, because of this ruling, the presumption is weighted on the side of being an automatic
        straw purchase if you ever transfer it afterward to Anyone, legally able to own, or not.

        This is so insidious that it even defies articulation to a large extent, depending upon ‘interpretation’ which Won’t be yours.
        I know it’s hard to grasp, but i see it as a back door elimination of the ‘gun show loophole’. All these private vendors with fifty different brand new pistols for sale cash and carry, now can be interpreted as straw purchasers if an ATF agent so desires.

        Especially if the agent asksy… So why did you buy all these guns last month? (as he’s standing at the private vendor’s table) I could easily incriminate anyone with about three questions enough to arrest them after this ruling. If the private table vendor answers ‘to make a few bucks’, then i can ‘interpret it’ as well then, you lied on your form and did not intend to buy them for yourself. Which is now the ‘crime’, INSTEAD OF BUYING A GUN FOR SOMEONE WHO IS NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE, THIS CONTRIBUTING TO A CRIME.

        Do you see this, yet?

        Maybe i’ll try later to explain it better after my third cup of coffee.

        Believe me, now that they’ve pulled this shit. It will be easier to make about fifty percent of the gun owners ‘mentally unfit’ and ‘lying’ when they now check box (d)&(e) on the 4473.

  • CedarCreekGuy June 23, 2014, 8:23 am

    A. He stated to the FFL that he was not the actual buyer and that he was buying it on behalf of his uncle, not as a gift.
    B. He provided false information on the 4473 when he stated he was the actual buyer ( see A above )
    C. SCOTUS confirmed his conviction on falsifying the 4473, nothing more

    The SCOTUS ruling has changed nothing, it is still 100% legal to buy a firearm as a gift, it is still legal to sell a personal firearm, and the 4473 must still be filled out with truthful information. He threw himself into the grease when he told the FFL that he was buying it on behalf of his uncle to get the discount. Had he either kept his mouth shut or said he was buying it as a gift he would have been okay. I am curious as to what happened to the FFL? Knowingly selling a firearm in violation of the ATF rules, to someone who tells you straight out that they are falsifying the information, is a violation of your license. The FFL had a duty to stop the sale.

    • Muhjesbude June 23, 2014, 11:39 am

      Our ‘Duty’ should be incumbent upon the absolute necessity to prevent this kind of tyrannical nonsense in the first place.

      Got any other ‘helpful’ hints how we should all suck up to the steady ‘qualification’ and the deterioration of our inalienable rights?

      Why don’t you just skip all the ‘nice law’ analysis and ‘support’ and go ahead and sign up for total registration? I’m sure you agree with that?

  • bimmerland . June 23, 2014, 8:19 am

    What about in states that do not require FFL transfers as long as the other person has a ccw or permit to buy. My state just requires a copy of the ccw or surrender of the permit.

  • Christopher June 23, 2014, 8:12 am

    Seems that when the officer wnt to the FFL dealer to transfer the firearm to his uncle, the FFL dealer should have stopped the transaction and informed both parties that the officer if the owner of the firearm and did not state that it would be resold on his previous ATF form.
    Another thing, ATF forms (Brady Bill) have been in use for years, the interpretation of line 1 of the general questions area should a paragraph about your options to either check one box or the other and the consequences.

  • Thomas June 23, 2014, 7:28 am

    I am confused also. In the first paragraph you say ‘The Supreme Court … adopted a narrow interpretation of the law, saying the “actual transferee/buyer” must acknowledge that he intends to resell the gun when he buys it…’. And in the last paragraph you say ‘no one may ever lawfully buy a gun for another person’. It reads to me that you can if you say so up front. What am I missing?

  • Ceapea June 23, 2014, 7:27 am

    Another thing, how is this different from one person paying for two (or more) handguns from an online/out of state dealer, having them shipped to a local FFL, and both (or more) people fill out their own forms?
    Is the question here about who paid for, versus, who ended up with the guns?
    It still seems that if two people fill out forms and pass the checks, it is two separate sales, performed legally.
    I don’t get it. It’s as if some information is missing from all of this.

    • CedarCreekGuy June 23, 2014, 8:31 am

      The 4473 is for the transfer of the firearm, which does not occur until the firearm is handed to you by the FFL. The purchase of a firearm from an online retailer who ships it to our FFL, is not a consummated transfer to you until such time as the receiving FFL hands it to you. Up until that time it is an FFL to FFL transfer.

      • Ceapea June 23, 2014, 11:34 am

        So, are you agreeing with me, or at least my suspicion, that if one person pays for say two pistols, then two people show up and each fill out their own forms, it is legal? Even if person two pays person one after the transfer from the FFL to each?

  • Ceapea June 23, 2014, 7:20 am

    I’m confused too!
    It says that “He bought the gun in Virginia”, which makes him the “actual transferee/buyer”.
    He then “went to visit his uncle in Pennsylvania, where they went to a gun dealer to complete the transfer and where his uncle passed the firearms check.”
    If his uncle passed the firearms check, and filled out his own form, what makes any of this illegal?

  • Roy_Bean (ret.) June 23, 2014, 6:40 am

    For over 40 years I was a lawyer, now I am retired. Every day I see nonsense like this from alleged “educated” judges.

    Most are low-information political hacks, who would sell their birthright for a bowl of pottage, and have consistently done so by infringing upon our God-given rights of self defense AND the 2nd Amendment.

    Sadly, it seems the Supreme’s ever-present “anti-gun majority” falls into this category. They can never see the forest for the trees.

  • SmokeHillFarm June 23, 2014, 6:35 am

    This is an idiotic ruling, completely unnecessary if the anti-gun thugs at the BATFE would simply change the damned 4473 to add a block for “giftee” or some other term, where their personal data could also be run as part of the sale.

    However, those Nazis would rather terrorize gun dealers and gun owners by purposely making a simple process almost impossible. This is no accident, not by a long shot.

    The easiest way around it is to simply tell the right story, and stick to it. If you have no intention of giving or selling it to another person (legal or not) AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, you violate no rule. If you decide, ten minutes (or ten seconds) later than Uncle Billy would really like this as a Christmas present, that’s a completely different issue, unrelated to YOUR already-completed purchase. Your later sale, or gift, to someone else should of course comply with any applicable law (if any).

    If the ATF Gestapo insists on being deliberately thuggish and refuse to fix their own mess, we simply have to comply with their nonsense pro forma.

    Just tell the right story, and stick to it.

  • Bryan J. June 23, 2014, 5:24 am

    I’m with Tom — where does this leave us? Was the ruling on the narrower issue of lying on the form? Abramsky knew that he was going to pass on the firearm immediately, yet he knowingly lied on the Form 4473 — not really smart, as far as I’m concerned. Does answering “no” on this question automatically get the purchase kicked out? Form 4473 doesn’t allow for a lot of “yes, but…” explanations. Is there a loophole that can be used? Such as holding onto the firearm for X number of days/weeks/months before passing it on? Firing X number of rounds through it first? Is there a reader of these GunsAmerica articles with a legal background who can answer these questions?

  • tom g June 16, 2014, 6:41 pm

    Ok I’m confused…..does this mean I can sell one of my guns to a lawful buyer but i cannot give a gun to same ? how about if i only charge a dollar? Does that make it legal ?

    • Val June 23, 2014, 4:47 am

      Sadly, I fear this means you cannot sell the gun either. In the case in question, Abramski bought the gun, held onto it until his uncle mailed him a check, which he then deposited, and transferred the gun to his uncle via FFL in PA. Now, call me alarmist if you will, but to me that means no firearms can be transferred between private individuals. Until the courts rule on this issue in depth, I think SCOTUS has effectively ended private sales of firearms, as you are not the “actual buyer” if you eventually turn the gun over to someone else, whether an exchange of money takes place between the parties or not. Again, I’m not a lawyer, and I can’t say anything on the subject for sure, but this surely feels like it doesn’t pass the common sense test.

      • David Pittelli June 23, 2014, 8:18 am

        No, SCOTUS has not “effectively ended private sales of firearms.” This is not a case where a person bought a gun, and then later decided to sell it. This is a case where a person bought a gun with the intention of selling it.

        • Muhjesbude June 25, 2014, 1:28 pm

          ‘David. Think very seriously about what you just said. I hope you were being sarcastic for the point. If not, start by watching that movie ‘Minority Report’ with Tom Cruise to give you a ‘hint’. Then you’ll understand that what SCROTE-US did was to “Effectively End the ‘thought’ of ever selling it”.

      • Jack June 23, 2014, 9:10 am

        Val, I read about the Supreme Court decision when it came out a week or so ago and I came to the same conclusion as you. It sounds to me that once you purchase a gun it is yours and only yours for life. What happens after your death, I don’t know because you can not legally leave it or give it to anyone; this is my interpretation. Possibly if a FFL dealer is involved then MAYBE some form of transfer of a firearm can be made?
        All in all a very ignorant Supreme Court Judge’s decision provided my interpretation is correct!

      • Muhjesbude June 23, 2014, 10:52 am

        I think you got it, Val. This is one of the worst things that can happen to us on the slippery slope to all out tyranny,
        This single ruling can ‘technically’–depending upon who does the ‘interpreting’ at the enforcement end–apply to any subsequent sale, especially a private one? We all know how BATF has a tendency to define the ‘law’ almost as bad as Obama does.

        Think about it, how many of us still have ALL the guns we first bought on a 4473? Which i’m pretty sure not many of us used an FFL dealer to do the ‘transfer’. Mine were either cash or trade or gifted. Does that make us ALL straw purchasers?

        A long long time ago I had a casual chat in court with a prominent criminal defense attorney whose specialty was defending mob people, while we were waiting for a trial. As i was one of the few ‘college educated ‘ cops in those days. Even had a semester at John Marshal under my belt, this wise old sheister was gracious enough to give me even the time of day. I was testifying as an expert witness but we got on the topic of guns. He was an avid gun person and managed to have a concealed carry permit in Chicago when such things didn’t exist! I was impressed, but not surprised. Anything was possible back in those days if you had enough money and/or clout. He sensed my not too subtle ‘disdain’ for Mobsters and told me a dirty, but profound, little secret about power reality.

        His ominous prophesy was that when they made the ‘law’ that criminals would forfeit their inalienable, Uninfringable Constitutional rights for crimes as part of the ‘pounishment’ process instead of simply incarcerating and rehabilitating them, and ‘helping them reintegrate into society as a value producing citizen again, this was the beginning of the end for everybody’s ‘uninfringable’ rights! And he didn’t care, because gun deaths were his business, and business was good.

        Of course I scoffed at him back then. I definitely was indoctrinated (as most cops REALLY are even though they won’t openly admit it). And Criminals had no ‘business’ having guns. Right?

        I wasn’t such a knowledgeable student back then, as most people weren’t, of the 2nd Amendment as i am now.
        I didn’t know that the original Revolutionary War didn’t care if the soldiers were criminals or Saints. No gun laws prevented them from their uninfringable class

        I’m beginning to understand what the old lawyer meant now. Profoundly understand it. He meant that if you create an entire class of permanent criminals, and get away with it, that is, having a situation where committing even only one crime will require that a person must PAY the REST OF THEIR LIVES, especially by making one of the ‘punishment’s coincidentally the loss of your natural guaranteed right to have a gun, you perpetuate the “Them against US” status quo. Then it simply becomes a matter of time before the power elite makes the ‘appropriate’ LAWS to TAKE AWAY your ‘inalienable rights”! How Clever! How Convenient! HOW Wrong!

        It’s one thing to completely dismiss any notion of ‘rehabilitation’ and integrations back into society. Where a person who can actually serve his punishment, know the error of his ways, resolve never to repeat his transgression, and go on to product value in society as a ‘born again’ upstanding citizen, But if you have to prevent that and permanantly punish or remind someone of their crimes, why not revert all the way back to draconian philosophy and simply brand them on their asses and bring them back every two years or so for the ‘mandatory’ tune-up of 40 horse whip lashes just for good measure?

        But not take away their Constitutional guarantees which actually, for all pragmatic purposes, precludes ANY form of re integration as a normal citizen into society? It actually perpetuates the ‘criminal mentality’. Think about it in the proper emotional content.

        BUT IT DEFINITELY MAKES IT EASIER TO THEN REGULATE, REGISTER, AND ULTIMATELY CONFISCATE ANY NON CRIMINAL’S GUNS, Thereby getting around the 2nd Amendment!

        ESPECIALLY since having a LAW making it ‘illegal’ for a Criminal who served his time can not even pretend to be effective in a free society! It’s almost a joke just how easy it is for anyone, minor, Felon, Illegal Alien, SPACE Alian or talking Parrot to get a gun! A machine gun even if they really want it?! Therefore, when you carefully really ponder it, There can only be one reason for it! And it ain’t really for ‘public safety’.

        Quite a few ‘Felons’, were well armed and fought in the Revolution. Back in the day punishment was swifter and much more severe than it is today. That’s a real issue. I don’t have a problem with that. Especially with people so evil or recitivist that they can’t rehabilitate. Forget about prohibiting them from voting or gun ownership which only hurts the rest of us, Prohibit them from physcially DOING THE CRIME! There are already numerous laws and humane procedures for this. The system is just self-defeating on it.

        I noticed an old 4473 does not have a ‘box’ to check for ‘straw purchases’. So who makes these laws and why? When did it come into affect and under whose administration? The factual reality is that so called ‘straw purchases’ are so INSIGNIFICANT in reality of criminal aquisition of firearms, the the Eva Braun twins must be laughing their asses off at us?

        I remember when there were NO laws, restrictions, mandates, for gun ownership by anyone. I could even pick up a case of 40% Atlas dynamite over the hardware store counter cash and carry no paperwork at all to help a farmer rid a field of stumps instead of wear and tear on his old tractor.

        There was hardly any real crime. We slept with the screed doors only closed.

        What saddens me here, is all the people who now are in a state of panic, are not shouting to completely reverse this situation and fire all these politicians and their insidious self serving laws of tyranny, and getting representatives in there to make NEW laws rescinding the old ones to completely reverse the status quo of any registration, restriction, and potential confiscation, but are, instead, making ‘excuses’ like ‘suggesting and hoping that the ‘kind and magnanimous’ BATF will somehow put ANOTHER FUCKING box to check on the form that we never should have had in the first place, that will all make it soooo much more smooogy-wooogie for us peons. (pronounced PEE-On)

        Why can’t ‘WE the People’ , or should i say SHEEPLE, see what’s happening here?

        Nobody thinks about what they wish for anymore. Oh, we’ll get a box added to the 4473. The one that says “Did you present your MHSR (Mental Health Status Release) card to the dealer before the purchase so he can run the ‘other’ check

        And another one based on the Boxer/Feinstein ‘Pause for Safety’ act asking you if any ‘family, friends, neighbors or ANYbody’ has EVER called the police on you thinking you were exhibiting ‘dangerous’ because you might also have guns?
        Because that would Certainly disqualify you from buying a gun.

        They beat us folks. We lost. Their agenda is now crystal clear. And they are a hair trigger distance away from accomplishing it. If they Can’t get SCROTE-US to flip around the wording of the 2nd amendment by challenging the ‘meaning’ of it, they’ll go below radar back door and make us ALL criminals, so that they can then confiscate your shit.

        All for the inane and insulting social fantasy illusion of ‘Crime Prevention’ for the sake of ‘Public Safety’!

        Yes, we ALL are as stupid as we look. At least when it comes to our most precious Constitutional Guarantee of all.

        We get what we deserve, and we deserve what we get.

        • dink winkerson June 23, 2014, 12:50 pm

          Well said Mehjesbude. I was thinking about posting something like that, don’t think I could have done it as well as you. I’m not really comfortable with the idea of violent felons having guns, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right, same as me.

          • Muhjesbude June 25, 2014, 11:41 am

            Well, dink, I’m not comfortable around criminals, either. That’s why I carry. I personally think from many years in the ‘field of study’ that the entire system is ass backwards and not quite, but almost totally corrupted. People who should NOT be in jail are doing big time. And sociopaths who should never be let out until they are completely reprogrammed, are getting probation. That’s another issue that will someday need to be corrected but right now, it’s more important to stop ‘Them’ from the ‘false flag’ of abusing our 2nd Amendment liberty for the excuse of ‘public safety’. The major ‘flaw’ in humanity is that there will always be good AND bad elements in society. It’s part of life. You deal with it as best you can in a reasonable objective philosophy.

            By the way. Crime is NOT ‘out of control’ as the Pelosi/Feinstein Fascists propaganda claims in the factual reality of the social balance. In fact, the actual FBI statistics support this. And in certain venues and demographics in the country, Overall violent crime has not increased at all, despite the steady population increase! THAT is what should be studied, NOT more tyrannical laws.

            But i’m far more ‘uncomfortable’ around dangerous agenda based politicians who will use any and all means to further their agenda. Including the abrogation of the most sacred of all civilized liberties. Our un-infringable unalienable natural Right to protect…with firearms if necessary what’s right to preserve our liberties!

          • dink winkerson June 26, 2014, 12:45 pm

            I carry all day every day.

        • Michael B. June 23, 2014, 10:37 pm

          Hello Muhjesbude,
          Thank you, well said.
          I am in the process of writing to the Dept of Justice about some very similar issues. I have been vasilating all week about it.
          I am confused on how this agency has started in the first place, and how its got so much clout ?
          I do not remember any one asking me if I thought it a good idea to start such an agency, or even of which such powers and authority we should give them.
          Who are these people/angencies ??? And who gave them the right to tell its citizens/bosses-us, how to, when to, what time to, give most personal information to, and mostly, what we are not allowed to do. I call us bosses only because we pay for it all, salaries, cars, planes, fuel, building and office spaces, and supplies, overtime, etc, etc, We hitting into the billions yet ? Time for a tax increase so we can keep these keen agencies up n running, don’t ya think ?? I believe we are more like slaves, called middle class America, made to work extra hard and long so that we may take the burden of, and make wealthy beyond comprehension, the’ ONE Percent ‘.
          I believe most if not all of organizations such as this, the war on drugs, national security, are all created,organized, run by, and are calculated to turn out like this, costing us way too much in dolars, not to mention taking away our inherrant inailliable rights, when we were born.
          Whenever any ones rights are taken, they take rights from us all. IE Some think, ” finally, those damn smokers can’t light up at bars and restaurants, then bus stops, then outside in parks, then there own apartments. You may not like smoke in general, or blown in your face, or kids face. NEWS FLASH, if you don’t like it, don’t go there, or ask the person if he would mind extinguishing it, if you say it with a little courtessy, they will probably apologize as they are putting it out. YOU DO NOT make laws forbbiding it, making a smoker a criminal, is criminal in itself for Christ sake.
          We do not need agencies and organizations we have not approved of running our lives, Don’t tell me what I can and cannot purchase. They need to reinstate the rights to those fellons, Did they not pay in full for there misgivings when they were sent to prison, see, you take there rights away, might as well be for all of us. If a badass criminal wants a gun the stupid little law on the books will not slow down his purchase of one, that is guaranteed.
          Our infamous government has got to get out of this horrible habit of assuming it has to control, YES CONTROL, its citizens. Think about it, remove all the laws, and asssociated things ( slaries, office, vehicles, vacations, don’t forget all those pensions ) across the board, and instead, we educate, yep, educate, gun safety class starting in kindergarten, hey, maybe we even get the parents to actually be parents, spend a little time with there kids, take em out shooting, don’t have to go hunting or killing animals, we have paper targets, and its a hella lota fun. Gun safety and proper procedures of operation, Naw too simple right ?? Think about how much money spent each year goes to administrating, policing, spying on, arresting, convicting, housing after convicting, incarceration costs, that is spent on just these 2 little things, Prostitution and the war on drugs. More than 1 or 2 billion, way more each year. Does anybody actually think it has had an impact to us ?? It actually does, but I believe it to make it a worst issue than if nothing at all was done. I think the war on drugs has actually created the ugly and violent drug cartels. By creating this war on drugs, which is not winnable, ever, they have made the cost of such drugs to be such great ways to secure large amounts of cash quickly. Well who else to lead such an enterprise. The smartest, biggest, baddest, mother f—ck–s to roam this earth, thats who. Whallah, ‘CARTEL’ is born.
          Again think if we repealled those laws, and yes, educate, educate, educate. Educate about drugs, get the prostitutes off the streets and have them get medical checkups monthly, clean up the oldest proffesion on earth. send the strung out druggies in for free help, try to train them to be contributers of society, get the underground drug buissiness out in the open where it could be regulated in some fashion, and tax both industries as you would any other legitamate buissiness.
          Will they ever go away completly ? Or will there be no more shoting accidents ?? Absolutly and inaquivickly, NO. but I bet it would be less, Much less of an issue that it is today.
          Alot of revenue would certainly not only be saved, not spent, but the incomme generated would be huge, spent for important things here, like schools and education, repaving our roads, maintaining and improving our infrastructures, develop jobs for christ sake.
          What the hell are they thinking ??? I have no freakin idea, except a one percenter is raking in in on the beauracracy of such ventures.
          Does everyone realize, crime would dwindle to hardly any, or even cease to exist if we all had firearms in our houses and the criminals new not only that, but the tenants in such housing actually know how to use them efficiently. What criminal in his own mind would dare to enter such a house. Firearms should be mandatory. If they were, we could rest assured, in times of trouble, nieghbors, and communities could, and would band together. The health of this fine Nation would start to heal.
          We the People, no longer own this country, Its been stolen from us.
          I implore you all to do something, anything. If they do not hear how we feel, how upset we are, and how we are not going to take it any more, It all means nothing.
          Stand up and be heard. Until there are thousands and thousands of us making a stink, we will be treated like we do not exist.
          I think I am going to bitch slap the next person that tells me, ‘yeah, yeah, but there’s nothing I / we can do about it’… Move somewhere else if you fell that way please, and don’t ever say it out loud again.
          Well, I covered alot of crap thats been stirring in the ole mind of late. There is more, much more, but my poor fingers are hurting from pounding these keyes so damn hard, and I have something to get done by midnight.
          My letter will be to D.O.J. by midnight tonight, no more procrastinating.
          Again, thank you Mehjesbude for lightin that fire under my ass. I commend you.
          Good night and god bless to all.
          Michael B.

          • Muhjesbude June 25, 2014, 12:28 pm

            Well put. Michael. You’re absolutely right about the ‘war on drugs’. Also totally legal and Pot and opiates were a natural part of general medicine back in the day. Available over the counter Remember the ‘medicine’ Wyatt Earp’s girlfriend and Doc Holiday was on? Cocaine was used in Coca Cola.

            Pot was a legal useful plant that threatened the growing cotton industry because hemp was a superior material so their Cotten ‘lobby’ found a couple poor people who couldn’t afford alcohol or tobacco and knew that you could smoke the hemp for a substitute, but committed some kind of crime afterward which gave them the excuse to blame it on ‘refer madness’ and bribe-forth another useless, anti-liberty law.

            Essentially, with gun laws, they committed the 4th greatest fraud on the American people when they first started the NFA way back when. Then ‘Gun Control Act’ of 1968.

            Before that there were no restrictions, paperwork, or records involved with buying just about anything from high explosives to cannons. And there was no ‘out of control’ violence.

            So ‘They’ secretly got together one day and.. the ‘fly on the wall’ heard the following:

            “…Well, this new personal ‘income tax’ scam we slipped in under their dumb grass munching sheeple noses is going to make we, the power elite, so rich and powerful that sooner or later the ‘curse of the Founding Fathers’ will be upon us when the dummies figure out they’re being bootie porked while we laugh all the way to the bank….

            “…Yeah, then they’ll organize and vote us out and change the laws to benefit the unwashed masses, instead of benefiting only our royalist power base?

            “…Well, ‘We’ can control that with our vast political system manipulation powers and with our massive wealth we can literally ‘buy’ the elections with overdose marketing and straight out bribery. What we have to worry about is that old snake in the grass, the one that’s hard to ‘tread on’– the ‘Jeffersonian revolution’ strategy of last resort? I never could stand that old fat assed smart ass Ben Franklin…

            “The solution to that will be to take away their guns. We can do that right under their noses also. We can start with making it a ‘law’ that criminals lose their right to own a gun. They won’t even realize that we okey doked their natural un-infringable right. Then, we’ll make ‘other’ laws that we will ultimately be able to use to make most of the ‘sheeple’ into criminals, when we’re ready to confiscate ALL their guns! It’ll be too late by the time they figure it out! AND, as gullible as they are, we’ll convince them that it’s all for their own good! We’ll call it ‘public safety’ laws, AAAGGGHGHHAHAHAHAHA!

            “AAHHH. Brilliant! Now i know why WE ARE the Power Elite, and they are the clueless peon sheeple. Lets also take away a ‘criminal’s’ right to VOTE! That way we can eliminate another potential voter block?” Then sooner or later we’ll eliminate ALL their irritating ‘freedoms’. Why would they ‘need’ them anyway when they are nothing more than our slaves?”

            Michael, I’m going to quote you in a book where I’m doing some chapter research for the author. “Whenever you take away one person’s rights, you take away that right from ALL of us!” –Michael B.

          • Steve February 3, 2017, 10:42 am

            Very well said, thank you

    • Brian June 23, 2014, 6:29 am

      If you buy a firearm with the intent to sell it you cant check the box that says you are the actual buyer of the firearm. But you can however give a(long gun) to your son/daughter with out any transfers. If it is a hunting rifle cool but if its a ar15 or some kind of semi auto that is deemed “evil” then a transfer is a safer way to go even if you are giving it to a son because you want to hand it down to him. I went through this with my father when he wanted to give me an ak47 variant. I had it transferred to be safe. Bottom line if someone wants a gun have them buy it theirself. If you want to surprise someone with a gun as a gift pay for it and then bring them to the gun shop and have them fill out the background check. Lets not give anti-gun people anymore ammo against us people that pratice the 2nd amendment.

      • Ricky Price June 23, 2014, 9:30 am

        Like the man said . If you by a gun for someone. Bring him to the gun shot , and let him fill out the paper work. Lot of good people are behind bars.

        • Muhjesbude June 23, 2014, 11:18 am

          Yup, good thinking. Do all you can to remain one of THEIR ‘law abiding citizens’ and help them do all they can to eventually eliminate private exchange of firearms. Don’t forget to save all your ammo receipts for them as well. They’ll want to eventually seize every round you have.

          We are getting like fucking trained and harnessed organ grinder monkeys.

          Shame on us.

      • Frank June 24, 2014, 5:26 pm

        Brian,
        That don’t sound fair but I must say your are Right.

    • arny June 23, 2014, 10:43 am

      Tom, no, doesn’t mean that at all. You can still sell guns exactly like you could before, and selling vs. giving is irrelevant. This only means that if you’re buying a gun *with the specific intent to give/sell it to a specific person*, you just have to check the box on the ATF form that says so, and provide their info for the background check.

      You can even see a gun you don’t care for at a great price, think to yourself, “Hey, I bet I could turn a profit by selling that for more on GunsAmerica,” and check the box that you’re not buying it for someone else because you don’t have any idea who you’ll resell it to.

      Legally, you can even see a gun for sale, think, “Wow, Bob’s been looking for one of those. I’ll buy it and see if it’s as great as he says,” check the box that you’re not buying it for someone else, and then 5 minutes later, think, “Wait, I really can’t afford this… Oh well, I bet Bob will take it off my hands.” This is legal.

      If you see that same gun, think, “Bob’s been looking for one of those, I’ll pick it up for him,” then you have to check the box that says you’re buying it for someone else and provide Bob’s info for the background check. If you check the box that says you’re buying it for you, THAT is what is illegal.

      • Bill June 23, 2014, 3:15 pm

        That’s EXACTLY what I think. If BATF, Feinstein, et al wants to prohibit me from selling a gun I have bought for personal use and then want to dispose of it, they will then require me to retain it and certify I still have it annually on my tax return and require me to advise my heirs, etc., to destroy the firearm or give it to the gov’t upon my death.
        Of course CA has now eliminated any retail gun purchases that are not on the approved list. I think S&W has already bailed – except for LE.

    • Dave Hernandez June 23, 2014, 11:27 am

      Both re-selling the firearm and gifting the firearm are still both very legal. This was not a case of a re-sale or a gift. Abramski accepted money from his uncle for the pistol BEFORE the pistol was purchased from the dealer, making this a very clear cut case of a strawman purchase. If you buy a firearm with your own money and then re-sell it afterwards with the money changing hands between you and the third party after the purchase from a dealer, then that is not a strawman and is perfectly legal. If you purchase a firearm with your own money and then present it as a gift to someone without accepting any money for it, then that is a gift and is not a strawman and is perfectly legal.

      • dink winkerson June 24, 2014, 12:30 pm

        Constitutionally speaking, he shouldn’t have needed to fill out the form.

    • albert ondash June 23, 2014, 2:34 pm

      they cant even keep illegals from crossing any border.if everyone sold a gun outright to anyone on line do u really think they have the manpower to run all those transaction down.

      • Muhjesbude June 25, 2014, 12:44 pm

        arny, Good thinking. Lot of smart people on this forum.

        Except for one thing.

        This is YOUR way of ‘thinking’. But NOT necessarily the ‘thinking’ or ‘interpretation’ of BATF, who will ultimately be the ‘last word’ on the situation.

        Unless the SCROTE-US has exclusions similar to your statements, in their decision here, then all interpretations by the BATF of the ‘transfers’ will be based on the subjective analysis of each case.

        I don’t think a lot of people even here understand exactly what that means. Most of you LEO’s probably do. It’s WAY too much ‘discretionary’ power. Just like the recent ‘change of mind’ over certain ‘parts’ all by themselves now constituting an illegal NFA firearm even if they’re not even in the same location of any firearms?

        But why are we even wasting our time trying to ‘beat the sytem’ incrementally?

        We are “WE The PEOPLE”! How’d we even let them get away with making all these draconian self serving tyrannical laws anyway?

        More importantly, why don’t when we fire them in a few months, just make our NEW employees reverse and eliminate all these Unconstitutional laws?

        Because otherwise They are beating us by ‘Law-ing’ us to death!

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend