Could This Be Considered a Straw Purchase?

[zukiphile]

John, I've bolded some words below, and those emphases are mine.

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

Good advice on the review. I didn't respond to something you said about a comment by Spats, I responded to something you said about one of my comments.

Your review should show have shown you that the issue under discussion with Spats is the comment to which you began this exchange. "The matter under discussion with" doesn't mean that you were responding to his text.

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

The assertion that the position was law before Abramski is not incorrect. That is a claim you have made several times now.

That is incorrect. It may be sloppiness with idiom that is confusing you. Typically, when you read "a law" that indicates a code section. As you've noted, that's a legislative product, not a judicial one, and the contrary hadn't been asserted or suggested. "Law" by itself may indicate an area rather than anything more specific as in Law on implied malice in torts arising from drunk driving will vary. The law on an issue is singular. People don't generally write the "singular" law because the concept is singular, and we try to avoid redundancy. The singular law on the issue of federal regulation of abortion is currently Dobbs. Prior to Roe, there wasn't "the law" on the issue, though there was law on the topic of abortion in many states.

One could be idiomatically correct in noting that there was diversity within the law prior to Abramski (the Sup Ct decision rather than the man), but that construction would support Aguila Blanca's observation of lack of clarity.

With the table set,

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

A diversity on the point doesn't indicate that a position is not valid law either.

The assertion that the position was law before Abramski is not incorrect. That is a claim you have made several times now.

No, John. You are misreading the text.

The law was equivocal prior to the decision in Abramski. That doesn't mean that the [singular] law in circuits with contrary caselaw (a form of law) aren't law, they just aren't the law. I have not claimed that the decisions of courts that had decided consistent with Abramski weren't law.

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

Ah, I see. You are adding the word "settled" to my assertion and then claiming it's incorrect based on that strawman. Laws do not come into being at the time they are settled. SCOTUS rulings either overturn or confirm EXISTING laws, they do not create them.

If you don't concede that Abramski produced the singular law on this point, meaning that it settled the circuit split, then we have more work to do. If you do already know that, then your protest about a strawman doesn't work for you.

In our system, courts make laws frequently; that's the body of case law. The Sup Ct makes laws frequently. We now have caselaw that a federal moratorium on state evictions as recently arose is not within federal authority. The caselaw on that point arises from the Sup Ct's decision.

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

Hmmm... Interesting how when you add words to what I said it changes the meaning.

If you want to address my comments, it would be more productive to do so. Putting words in my mouth and then addressing the resulting strawman is pointless.

Since no one put words in your mouth, it's not a strawman, and I doubt that tom is made of straw.

Addressing this isn't pointless since it resolves an equivocation for the purpose of explaining the issue. Where you understand that law on this specific point was diverse and there was a split prior to Abramski, you agree that it produced the singular law on the point that there is now.

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

Pretty sure that SCOTUS (and therefore every court in the land) would disagree with you that this issue remains questionable.

An illustration of your confidence in an assertion that is not correct or relevant to the explanation is as good a time as any to wind this up. Feel free to chase your tail if it continues to please you.

[JohnKSa]

If you don't concede that Abramski produced the singular law on this point, meaning that it settled the circuit split, then we have more work to do. If you do already know that, then your protest about a strawman doesn't work for you.

Abramski was not a legislative process so it didn't produce any law.

Abramski did settle a circuit split by confirming an existing law.

Since no one put words in your mouth, it's not a strawma...

By adding the word "unequivocally" to my statement (putting words into my mouth) you changed the focus and therefore the meaning of my statement. That's called a strawman, as you know. As you knew when you altered my statement to create it.

In our system, courts make laws frequently; that's the body of case law.

They don't do this except by confirming or overturning existing laws. For a court to rule, there had to be a law, already in existence, that generated the prosecution and brought the court into the picture.

"a law" ... "Law" by itself may indicate an area...as in Law ...The law .... the "singular" law ... The singular law ...there wasn't "the law" ... there was law. ...there was diversity within the law

Ok. Right.

You're getting more and more creative and more and more deliberately (and needlessly) esoteric in your responses. I understand why you feel that's necessary, but it's not really a very complicated topic and the principles are actually pretty simple.

To save a lot of typing, let's take a step back and consider some simple questions with simple answers.

1. Is it your contention that the law in question came into being when SCOTUS ruled on it?

2. Is it your contention that there was no legal basis for arresting/prosecuting convicting Abramski? If there was, what was it?

3. Is it your contention that even though SCOTUS has ruled on the law that it still remains questionable? If so, why is it still questionable?

4. On what basis would one challenge a "questionable" law that has been confirmed by SCOTUS? If there is no basis, how is the law questionable?

5. Is it your contention that a circuit ruling invalidates a law everywhere in the country and that state of affairs remains in place, countrywide unless/until SCOTUS takes a second case and rules in favor of the law? If so, what is the basis for prosecution in the second case?

6. Do you believe that there is any way for a law to cease to be questionable if its interpretation has ever changed in the past?

7. Do you believe that there is any way for a law to cease to be questionable if there have ever been differing rulings in the courts?

[steve4102]

Thanks for all the Replies and great info, but I’m still not sure, is using another persons CC to purchase a firearm online for myself a straw purchase.

[zukiphile]

... is using another persons CC to purchase a firearm online for myself a straw purchase.

No, but...

As a practical matter, the "but" will be the more important part of the answer for a transferee.

...your FFL may like to operate according to some brightline rules that don't make him or his staff wonder why you aren't paying with your own CC. Vendors aren't typically looking for trouble or the chance to make a point with their licensing authorities. A purchase in which you point to the firearm you want, fill out the 4473 and pay with your own card or money is the straight over the plate pattern that doesn't have him wondering if you are really purchasing on your own behalf.