Well, the Supreme Court handed down the Abramski decision. He lost.

On the one hand, it’s not unexpected, and for most of us nothing really changes: straw-man purchases are illegal. But on the other hand, the dissent basically argued that isn’t what the statute passed by congress and signed by the prez actually SAID, and thus that isn’t illegal according to the letter of the law, and trying to interpret legislative intent is a bad way to go about making decisions. The decision could have been worse, but I still wish that it had gone the other way, even if that means congress would likely pass a law in record time to “correct” the situation.





2 thoughts on “Abramski

  1. This is actually a problem. Because I can’t see how it is a straw purchase when after purchasing it he sent it through an FFL to his uncle. So at every step of the way there was a NICS check. This sort of shows that the question needs to be removed from the 4473, or the law needs to be changed to say that if you sell it to another person and it goes through a dealer you are exempt from prosecution under that item.

    • As I understand it, Dealer sold to A (with 4473) who sold to B (with 4473), but the final owner (B) paid for the gun directly (gave the money, a check, to A) when the first buyer bought the gun. If they’d handed over cash, waited a week, then bought with cash, no checks involved, it would have been virtually impossible to prove. Regardless, I think the long-term effects of the ruling (going with what the justices thought congress meant, rather than said) will be worse in other spheres than in this particular case. Look at how such thinking could/has changed ObamaCare…

Comments are closed.