Quote:
In that scenario, the disability is the poor credit rating. It's a straw loan because the borrower suffers a disability he sidesteps by use of the straw borrower. That's a classic straw party scenario.
You'll also see these in real estate where a buyer doesn't want the seller's disdain for the buyer to queer an offer. In that scenario, it's the buyer's identity that is the disability.
|
Correct. The point was is that the example I gave (and the one you gave) demonstrates that there are other examples where a straw purchase is illegal even though the buyer is not prohibited from purchasing/possessing. The idea that guns are special--they are the only case where a straw transaction can take place and be illegal even though the actual purchaser is not prohibited from performing the transaction or owning the item in question is demonstrably false as these examples show.
Quote:
|
Abramski is not merely a confirmation of the original bureau position or implementation of the Act. It contradicts earlier bureau positions and enforcement.
|
It may well be true that in the distant past the bureau position and enforcement was different, but it was not different for many years leading up to Abramski.
Regardless of what position the BATF held in times long past, they had taken the position that a straw purchase was equivalent to lying on the 4473 well before the Abramski case came along.