Originally posted by ZahlanziThe dissent didn't argue that you're allowed to lie on the form. It was a statutory interpretation case. The dissent argued that the conduit buyer is the "real" buyer even if the intent is to later give it to someone else. According to the dissent, the Congressional purposes was to ensure that the person at the buyer is who he purports to be, not that he has no intent to transfer it to another lawful owner later on. Keep in mind that in this case, both the purchaser and the recipient were lawful owners and the purchaser made the purchase in order to get a personal discount. Was the intent of the rule to apply where one lawful owner intends to purchase it and give it to another lawful owner later on?
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/06/supreme-court-knocks-down-nra-claims-straw-buyers
i repeat the key point: 4 judges think one should be allowed to lie on government forms, in this case, about who is the actual buyer.
I tend to agree with the majority in this case, but I'd hardly call the issue open and shut.
Originally posted by sh76do you think a person should be allowed to resell his gun?
The dissent didn't argue that you're allowed to lie on the form. It was a statutory interpretation case. The dissent argued that the conduit buyer is the "real" buyer even if the intent is to later give it to someone else. According to the dissent, the Congressional purposes was to ensure that the person at the buyer is who he purports to be, not that he has no ...[text shortened]...
I tend to agree with the majority in this case, but I'd hardly call the issue open and shut.
do you think that a form that states "if you check the "i am the actual buyer" and you are not, you are breaking the law" is vague? or do you have a different definition of "lying on a government form" than i do?
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi===do you think a person should be allowed to resell his gun?===
do you think a person should be allowed to resell his gun?
do you think that a form that states "if you check the "i am the actual buyer" and you are not, you are breaking the law" is vague? or do you have a different definition of "lying on a government form" than i do?
To someone who meets the applicable legal requirements to own it, of course I do.
===do you think that a form that states "if you check the "i am the actual buyer" and you are not, you are breaking the law" is vague? or do you have a different definition of "lying on a government form" than i do?===
It's a close question. You could make the argument that even if you intend to give it to another person, you are the actual buyer. When I buy an ice cream cone from Carvel and give it to my kid, I am the actual buyer. I paid the money, I took delivery and what I do with it after the transaction is my affair.
I agree that the language on the form seems to indicate that they're trying to prevent buying the gun for someone else which is why I do agree with the majority. But I would say that it's a close case. It's a question of congressional intent as applied.
1 edit
Buying a gun for someone who can't legally purchase one obviously should be illegal, but buying one for someone who CAN should not be a crime. I feel bad for the person that was prosecuted, he really didn't do anything wrong.
Used to be you could buy a gun as a gift and present it to someone before the government started getting so anal about gun purchases.
Originally posted by Krod MandoonDamn right, next thing is they'll want to know who owns every property.
Buying a gun for someone who can't legally purchase one obviously should be illegal, but buying one for someone who CAN should not be a crime. I feel bad for the person that was prosecuted, he really didn't do anything wrong.
Used to be you could buy a gun as a gift and present it to someone before the government started getting so anal about gun purchases.
Originally posted by sh76"To someone who meets the applicable legal requirements to own it, of course I do"
===do you think a person should be allowed to resell his gun?===
To someone who meets the applicable legal requirements to own it, of course I do.
===do you think that a form that states "if you check the "i am the actual buyer" and you are not, you are breaking the law" is vague? or do you have a different definition of "lying on a government form" than ...[text shortened]... ity. But I would say that it's a close case. It's a question of congressional intent as applied.
are you, as a regular citizen, qualified to decide who meets the applicable legal requirements? are you going to check the buyer's psych evaluation, background checks, criminal records, etc and do you have that authority?
"You could make the argument that even if you intend to give it to another person, you are the actual buyer."
no you can't. it would render the whole process useless. i can just buy a truck of guns, then pass them around to gangbangers for profit.
"When I buy an ice cream cone"
except a gun is not an icecream cone. it is a special product that should be regulated. this is the reason why explosives are bought with special authorization, and you can't resell them to bubba so he can go fishing with them. bomb ingredients, poisons, drugs.
you don't get to be treated different than the authorized gun dealer just because ... what? why are you allowed to sell them to someone on the street and the gun dealer (the law abiding kind) can't?
" But I would say that it's a close case"
so you agree with the language on the form, you agree it's not vague, so what is a close call here? what exactly is open to interpretation?
Originally posted by Krod MandoonI think he means all property, which could include everything you own. I'd say that the way things are going the government will know everything about you including everything you own. Nice state to live in.
I'm sure that was very clever but what was that supposed to mean?
Originally posted by Krod Mandoonhe only tried to defraud the government, lie on a legal form, bypass regulations meant to prevent exactly this, yeh, you're right, what is wrong here?
Buying a gun for someone who can't legally purchase one obviously should be illegal, but buying one for someone who CAN should not be a crime. I feel bad for the person that was prosecuted, he really didn't do anything wrong.
Used to be you could buy a gun as a gift and present it to someone before the government started getting so anal about gun purchases.
"Used to be you could buy a gun as a gift and present it to someone"
yeh, the good old days of social and racial inequality, with deadly epidemics and rampant human rights violations.
"before the government started getting so anal about gun purchases."
school shootings would make everyone anal.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't know what world you live in but the days of social and racial inequality are today.
he only tried to defraud the government, lie on a legal form, bypass regulations meant to prevent exactly this, yeh, you're right, what is wrong here?
"Used to be you could buy a gun as a gift and present it to someone"
yeh, the good old days of social and racial inequality, with deadly epidemics and rampant human rights violations.
"before the government started getting so anal about gun purchases."
school shootings would make everyone anal.
I think what you meant to say was "the days of freedom'.
3 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziTry living somewhere else and get back to us on how great it is.
what fictional society are you thinking of? because you can't be talking about the US.
Africa/Asia/Central-South America/ China/Middle East yep things are just peachy compared to the Big Bad Evil US.
You're from Romania? And you say the citizens of the USA are being abused by the government?
What do you have to brag about?
Originally posted by sh76How is it a "close case"? Here's the question and instructions:
===do you think a person should be allowed to resell his gun?===
To someone who meets the applicable legal requirements to own it, of course I do.
===do you think that a form that states "if you check the "i am the actual buyer" and you are not, you are breaking the law" is vague? or do you have a different definition of "lying on a government form" than ...[text shortened]... ity. But I would say that it's a close case. It's a question of congressional intent as applied.
Question 11.a. asks (with bolded emphasis appearing on the form itself):
“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.” Ibid.
The accompanying instructions for that question provide:
“Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourselfor otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself . . . . You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAM-PLES: 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 TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a.” Id., at 4.
After responding to this and other questions, the customer must sign a certification declaring his answers “true, correct and complete.” Id., at 2. That certification provides that the signator “understand[s] that making any false . . . statement” respecting the transaction—and, particularly, “answering ‘yes’ to question 11.a. if [he is] not the actual buyer”—is a crime “punishable as a felony under Federal law.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1493#writing-12-1493_OPINION_3
That doesn't seem very ambiguous to me. Moreover, in this case, Abramski's uncle mailed him a $400 check and instructed him to buy a particular gun for him. That's not exactly your "ice cream cone" scenario.