SCOTUS Has Taken a Straw Purchase Case - Page 4

Armorer-at-Law · January 24, 2014, 10:49 AM

There is also a very interesting back story that is described here: http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/20...d-by-the-feds/

Not sure want's true and isn't. It's rather confusing. But this may explain why the case was prosecuted in the first place.

jimpeel · January 24, 2014, 04:09 PM

Listening to the arguments the first five minutes will make you cringe.

AUDIO

TRANSCRIPT

They describe a classic straw purchase and the lawyer, Dietz, says that it is lawful.

Quote:

2 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What would happen if two

3 people walk into the gun store, one person hands the

4 money to the other and says, buy me that gun?

5 MR. DIETZ: Yes, Your Honor.

6 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Is that not actionable,

7 according to your theory?

8 MR. DIETZ: Your Honor, the circumstance

9 where there are two lawful gun owners, that is

10 permissible. And I think a good way to illustrate that

11 is to consider the government's concession that in that

12 hypothetical, if the two people walked into the gun

13 store and the person looked and said, I'd like that gun

14 and points to the counter and then the person

15 standing --

16 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What's -- what's

17 truthful about saying you're the buyer -*

18 JUSTICE SCALIA: Please finish what you were

19 saying. I -- I didn't understand what your point was.

20 MR. DIETZ: Yes, Your Honor.

21 In that circumstance, if the person standing

22 at the counter then says, I'd like to buy that firearm,

23 that the person indicated, I'm going to give it to that

24 person, then even the government concedes that in that

25 circumstance, everything about that sale is perfectly

1 lawful and the buyer can take the gun, hand it to that

2 person standing next to them, who would leave the gun

3 store with the gun dealer and the government having

4 absolutely no idea who that person is or where the gun

5 is going.

6 JUSTICE KAGAN: I'm sorry. So you're saying

7 that in that case, the gun dealer runs the background

8 check on the person who hands the gun dealer the credit

9 card as opposed to the person who will be the actual

10 recipient of the gun? Is that what you're saying the

11 statute requires?

12 MR. DIETZ: That's correct, Your Honor. I

13 think the government concedes that as well in gift

14 circumstance at least, and there's certainly nothing in

15 the Gun Control Act that suggests that Congress was

16 distinguishing between those two circumstances at all.

jimpeel · January 24, 2014, 04:21 PM

Quote:

The real idiocy there is that you can buy with the intent to resell but you can't sell it (get the money) before you buy it. There is fundamentally no difference.

The 4473 even states that you can give a person a gift certificate to buy a firearm and that is legal. The form also states that if the firearm is for a gift that you are to answer "Yes" that you are the actual buyer. The gifting question was removed from the form years ago.

I got into a protracted argument with a poster on another forum that you can gift a firearm to anyone while he argued that you may only gift the firearm to a family member which is not true. He claimed to be a retired gun shop owner but I believe he was arguing from the text of the old 4473 form prior to the removal of the gifting question.

Brian Pfleuger · January 24, 2014, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimPeel

They describe a classic straw purchase and the lawyer, Dietz, says that it is lawful.

That's a confusing snippet of the transcript. The first section, he clearly indicates that a transaction is actually legal that we would all know is illegal... "one person hands the money to the other and says, buy me that gun"... but the way they go on to explain it... "the gun dealer runs the background check on the person who hands the gun dealer the credit card as opposed to the person who will be the actual recipient of the gun?"...is completely different, no more than a gift, which is completely legal.

Odd.

Al Norris · January 24, 2014, 08:35 PM

If anyone bothered to read the briefs, the Government had already conceded that point, Brian.

Fact is, there were a lot of concessions that we had thought were normally unlawful.

Brian Pfleuger · January 24, 2014, 08:43 PM

Well, I'm no legal scholar. I was not aware that something written in a court brief amounted to over turning a legal principle on which people have been convicted and jailed.

I guess that leaves me more confused than ever. Is that not the very point on which the government's case is based?

January 24, 2014, 08:43 PM	#81
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,694	Well, I'm no legal scholar. I was not aware that something written in a court brief amounted to over turning a legal principle on which people have been convicted and jailed. I guess that leaves me more confused than ever. Is that not the very point on which the government's case is based? __________________ https://ecommercearms.com I am the owner/operator! Ask me for custom prices! No sales tax outside CO!

January 24, 2014, 10:49 AM	#76
Armorer-at-Law Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 2002 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 465	There is also a very interesting back story that is described here: http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/20...d-by-the-feds/ Not sure want's true and isn't. It's rather confusing. But this may explain why the case was prosecuted in the first place.

January 24, 2014, 08:35 PM	#80
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,659	If anyone bothered to read the briefs, the Government had already conceded that point, Brian. Fact is, there were a lot of concessions that we had thought were normally unlawful.