SCOTUS Has Taken a Straw Purchase Case

[born2climb]

Then again, much has changed since the founders wrote the Constitution. The Second doesn't have anything to do with straws...

Seriously, it is illegal to murder someone, whether you strangle them with an extension cord, drown them in a toilet, or beat them to death with a shovel. Until a crime has been committed, I say leave the topic of gun purchase alone. If it's all about keeping guns out of the hands of felons, then define straw purchase as such.

[motorhead0922]

Originally Posted by Revoltella

How did this even pop up on the BATFE's radar?

I'd like to know that too. It seems to me that if Abramski hadn't done the second FFL transfer (and just handed over the G19), he wouldn't have gotten in any trouble at all.

[ThesNazud]

Just to clarify a little of the timeline, from the Fourth's decision:
1) November 15, 2009 -- Alvarez sends Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" in the memo line.
2) November 17, 2009 -- Abramski purchases G19 (and a bunch of other stuff apparently) for cash.
3) November 20, 2009 -- Abramski deposits check.
4) Nobember 21, 2009 -- Abramski transfers handgun via FFL to Alvarez.

I point to number 4. When I worked at an FFL, all transactions required a 4473, be it us oh a buyer or if two private individuals did the transfer through us. In the later instance, the seller transferred to us, and we transfer to the buyer via a 4473 and in case of a pistol, the state background check as well. Where is the straw purchase? This to me seems more of a fraud thing to end around a discount to someone not elegable for it, NOT a straw purchase..

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Wreck-n-Crew

I was way off in my interpretation of what a straw buy was!

WnC, you are by no means alone. I don't presume to speak for Frank, but I'd guess that part of the reason he shared this is because we see a lot of mistaken ideas posted about what constitutes a "straw purchase." We have repeatedly seen claims by other posters that "XYZ wasn't a straw purchase because the recipient of the pistol wasn't prohibited."

Originally Posted by Revoltella

How did this even pop up on the BATFE's radar?

Obviously, I have no first-hand knowledge of how this happened, but it appears to have been just plain ol' simple sleuthing:

Meanwhile, on November 12, 2009, a bank robbery occurred at Franklin Community Bank in Rocky Mount, Virginia. An investigation of the robbery led the FBI to suspect Abramski. Abramski had been fired from the Roanoke police department in 2007, looked similar to the masked bank robber, and was down on his luck (Abramski and his wife had recently separated and their home was in foreclosure). . . . . two FBI agents investigating the robbery sought and secured search [2] warrants relating to the investigation. The "items to be seized" [under the first warrant] included things believed to be related to the bank robbery, such as a black square duffle bag, a black ski mask, firearms, and the catch-all phrase covering "[a]ny and all articles that appear to be relevant to the commission of a robbery." . . . . specified some of the same items as the first warrant and also included the same catch-all phrase. In executing the search warrant for the Iron Ridge Road property, agents found and seized a green Franklin Community Bank zippered bag containing the written receipt confirming the transfer of the Glock 19 handgun from Abramski to Alvarez on November 21, 2009.

So, to recreate some more of this timeline:
1) November 12, 2009 -- Bank Robbery in Rocky Mount, VA
2) November 15, 2009 -- Alvarez sends Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" in the memo line.
3) November 17, 2009 -- Abramski purchases G19 (and a bunch of other stuff apparently) for cash at an FFL in Collinsville, some 20-25 miles from Rocky Mount.
4) November 20, 2009 -- Abramski deposits check.
5) Nobember 21, 2009 -- Abramski transfers handgun via FFL to Alvarez.

If I were an FBI agent looking for a bank robber, I'd be looking for someone with large amounts of cash to throw around. Gun shops seem like a pretty good place to be looking, given that I'd be looking for a bank robber . . .

Originally Posted by ThesNazud

The (alleged) straw purchase is number 2, not number 4.

Originally Posted by Fourth Circuit

Of importance here, question 11.a. on the ATF Form 4473 stated:

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.

Abramski checked the answer "Yes" to question 11.a. Three days later, on November 20, 2009, the $400 check from Alvarez was deposited in Abramski’s bank account, and the next day Abramski transferred the Glock 19 handgun to Alvarez at a licensed federal firearms dealer in Easton, Pennsylvania. At that time, Alvarez gave Abramski a receipt confirming the transfer, reflecting that Alvarez had purchased the Glock 19 handgun for $400.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ThesNazud

...Where is the straw purchase?...

And see post 18 (and the Fourth Circuit decision linked to in post 1).

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Just to clarify a little of the timeline, from the Fourth's decision:
1) November 15, 2009 -- Alvarez sends Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" in the memo line.
2) November 17, 2009 -- Abramski purchases G19 (and a bunch of other stuff apparently) for cash.
3) November 20, 2009 -- Abramski deposits check.
4) Nobember 21, 2009 -- Abramski transfers handgun via FFL to Alvarez.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If I were law enforcement or a judge, I'd call it a straw purchase given the first three parts of the timeline. However, once they decided to do the handover through an FFL...well, that really goes towards wanting to do the right thing. Some discretion certainly should have been exercised.

Given the same time line, I get to a different conclusion than Tom. The two men lived in different states. Even if Alvarez wrote a check on the 15th, it's unlikely that Abramski received it on the 17th. Even if he did, he had not deposited it. Thus, the purchase was made using his own money (even though with the expectation of reimbursement).

To me, the "smell test" here is as I described in a previous post. If Abramski could have legally gone through EXACTLY the same steps to buy the gun and GIVE it to Alvarez, what possible difference could (and should) it make that Alvarez reimbursed him for the cost?

This is another example of the government working overtime to turn honest citizens into "criminals" over alleged technical violations of laws and regulations that the law enforcement agencies themselves don't even understand. And clearly law enforcement agencies DON'T understand the laws and regulations applicable here, since we have federal circuit courts disagreeing on what the law means. So the answer is not as patently obvious as we might wish for.

It's a shame lawmakers long ago stopped writing laws that just said what they meant in plain English. "Don't sell guns to bad guys" (perhaps with a definition of what "bad guy" means in the context of the law) would have been much simpler and easier to understand than all the gobbledigook that makes up the legal landscape underlying this case.

[bikerbill]

Did I miss somewhere in this discussion how the feds got wind of this in the first place? I get that they have violated a law ... but if no crime was committed with the gun and FFLs handled both the original purchase and the transfer, what red light went off at ATF or the FBI to bring this pretty obviously innocent act to the law's attention?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...(even though with the expectation of reimbursement)....

Legally that really does make a significant difference. The "straw purchase" is really about someone acting as the agent or proxy of someone else to buy a gun. Here Abramski (son) was acting as his father's agent, his father being the principal and actual purchaser. And Abramski (son) was merely advancing funds on the account of his principal.

Everything had been arranged ahead of time and an agent-principal relationship established.

Originally Posted by bikerbill

Did I miss somewhere in this discussion how the feds got wind of this in the first place?...

Discussed in the Fourth Circuit decision linked to in post 1 and by Spats McGee in post 29.

[Aguila Blanca]

Bill, see post #29 by Spats McGee.

[Brian Pfleuger]

It's hard to argue that this doesn't run afoul of the ATFs current interpretation of the law but I think it's a good case because there's nothing about it that SHOULD be illegal.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Given the same time line, I get to a different conclusion than Tom. The two men lived in different states. Even if Alvarez wrote a check on the 15th, it's unlikely that Abramski received it on the 17th. Even if he did, he had not deposited it. Thus, the purchase was made using his own money (even though with the expectation of reimbursement).

I'll admit to not having the foggiest clue how long it would have taken the check to get from VA to PA. With that said, I have a strong hunch that Abramski had, at the very least, received Alvarez's promise to pay him for the G19. If he had received the check, he would have received an order to pay (which is technically what a check is, if I remember my Negotiable Instruments class rightly). From a contract perspective, those both (promise and order) amount to consideration.

It is clear that the initial purchase was made with his own money. (Purchase = November 17. Check Deposit = November 20.) But it also appears that Alvarez and Abramski had entered into an agreement for Abramski to buy the gun for Alvarez. That's kind of the heart and soul of a straw purchase.

[Brian Pfleuger]

But it also appears that Alvarez and Abramski had entered into an agreement for Abramski to buy the gun for Alvarez. That's kind of the heart and soul of a straw purchase.

It's just plain silly that such a thing would be illegal. Folks do the same exact thing with all kinds of other objects every single day.

For instance, I know where there's a '64 1/2 Mustang that I can get for $4000. I know that you want a '64 1/2 Mustang. I tell you I can get you the car for $6000. You agree. I buy the car and sell it to you.

The Mustang could be replaced with almost literally ANY object in the known universe and be perfectly legal... except a gun, when it becomes suddenly illegal.

[TATER]

Dose what happened break the letter of the law? It sure does, look right here (ink on paper)… Now, what was the spirit of the law?
The law is to stop Prohibited people from obtaining guns..That is the intent, that is so obvious to a rational person.
In my eyes, the only reason this was caught was because of the attempt to be above board. I think the ffl. transfer in its self, was the clincher.
Again, to me, this is not the intent.. The Agent that pushed this……..Well, who knows what his motives are...

[JimDandy]

Originally Posted by motorhead0922

I'd like to know that too. It seems to me that if Abramski hadn't done the second FFL transfer (and just handed over the G19), he wouldn't have gotten in any trouble at all.

Oh I'd say he would have. Apparently the Uncle lived out of State., requiring an FFL transfer of a private sale, and a pistol to boot.

The problem appears to reside in the timing of the check suggesting/proving an intent or contract.

[Tom Servo]

If Abramski could have legally gone through EXACTLY the same steps to buy the gun and GIVE it to Alvarez, what possible difference could (and should) it make that Alvarez reimbursed him for the cost?

It really shouldn't.

Here's a scenario: I mention that I'm going by a gun shop today on my lunch break. Blanca says, "hey, they've got that Bustamatic 2000 in stock. Here's the money. Can you pick it up for me?" If I do so, I'm breaking the law. It doesn't matter that it's perfectly legal for him to own it.

However, let's say I just happen to be in the shop, and I see the BM2000. I think, "hey, Blanca wants one of those. I'll buy it for him." Since I'm buying it as a gift, I'm not breaking the law. Even if he reimburses me for it. Even if I sell it to him at a higher price than I paid.

The line is really blurry and arbitrarily drawn. I get why the statute was enacted, but like many gun-control laws, it's a disaster in practice.

[Brian Pfleuger]

However, let's say I just happen to be in the shop, and I see the BM2000. I think, "hey, Blanca wants one of those. I'll buy it for him." Since I'm buying it as a gift, I'm not breaking the law. Even if he reimburses me for it. Even if I sell it to him at a higher price than I paid.

That's the real idiocy of it. Your intent could be exactly the same, "I'm going to buy this gun cheap and triple my money on Blanca!" but if Blanca somehow knows you intend to sell him the gun, it's magically a crime.

[Tom Servo]

What's odd is that prosecutors decided to circle the wagons around Abramski and bring out the pitchforks, while those conducting intentional straw buys routinely get off the hook.

I'm familiar with more than a few cases locally. Nobody gets the full sentence, even when the guns are later used in crimes. Most folks plead down to a lesser charge, and I've known defendants to get off with probation.

One of the major purchasers in the Fast & Furious operation got 41 months, but a guy with no intention of wrongdoing and no harm done gets the book thrown at him.

[motorhead0922]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Oh I'd say he would have. Apparently the Uncle lived out of State., requiring an FFL transfer of a private sale, and a pistol to boot.

You're correct Jim. I had not read through all the info, and did not see that the gun crossed a state line.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

What's odd is that prosecutors decided to circle the wagons around Abramski and bring out the pitchforks, while those conducting intentional straw buys routinely get off the hook.

Well, it could be because Abramski is not exactly the poster boy for our side. There is some evidence, although apparently not enough for conviction, that he robbed the bank to begin with. The evidence is enumerated in the link in post 1:

"Meanwhile, on November 12, 2009, a bank robbery occurred at Franklin Community Bank in Rocky Mount, Virginia. An investigation of the robbery led the FBI to suspect Abramski. Abramski had been fired from the Roanoke police department in 2007, looked similar to the masked bank robber, and was down on his luck (Abramski and his wife had recently separated and their home was in foreclosure).

In executing the search warrant for the Iron Ridge Road property, agents found and seized a green Franklin Community Bank zippered bag containing the written receipt confirming the transfer of the Glock 19 handgun from Abramski to Alvarez on November 21, 2009."

Maybe the grand jury handed down the charge they could get a conviction on.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

It's just plain silly that such a thing would be illegal. Folks do the same exact thing with all kinds of other objects every single day.

For instance, I know where there's a '64 1/2 Mustang that I can get for $4000. I know that you want a '64 1/2 Mustang. I tell you I can get you the car for $6000. You agree. I buy the car and sell it to you.

The Mustang could be replaced with almost literally ANY object in the known universe and be perfectly legal... except a gun, when it becomes suddenly illegal.

The key difference is that there's not a statute on the books that makes that kind of thing a crime with Mustangs, or just about any other object. But we all know that there is such a statute with respect to firearms.

Yes, it's silly. We all know that it's silly. The courts, however, are not in the business of determining the wisdom (or silliness) of statutes. They're in the business of determining (in criminal cases) whether the State has carried its burden of proving a violation. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, if Abramski had raised a 2A challenge to the law, then the court could make a determination as to the validity of the law. He does not challenge the constitutionality of the statute, though.

I suspect that this may be part of an effort to backpedal from the "we don't have time to prosecute paperwork violations" doctrine. I agree with Tom that it's really strange that they're ready to lynch Abramski, but while known traffickers have been given such light sentences, historically speaking.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Here's a scenario: I mention that I'm going by a gun shop today on my lunch break. Blanca says, "hey, they've got that Bustamatic 2000 in stock. Here's the money. Can you pick it up for me?" If I do so, I'm breaking the law. It doesn't matter that it's perfectly legal for him to own it.

However, let's say I just happen to be in the shop, and I see the BM2000. I think, "hey, Blanca wants one of those. I'll buy it for him." Since I'm buying it as a gift, I'm not breaking the law. Even if he reimburses me for it. Even if I sell it to him at a higher price than I paid.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

For example, I just got a card in the mail about a gun show coming up in two weeks. It's about 50 miles away, and I may or may not be able to get there. But I'm sure if I ask around at the range I can turn up somebody who will be attending. So I could hand one of these people a wad of cash and they can legally pick up ammo, holsters, scopes, parts, accessories, and gun-related "stuff" up the wazoo for me ... but if they buy a mil-surp CZ-82 or even a non-functional Colt 1860 Army ... now it's a straw purchase? How is that logical, and what purpose does it serve? Especially if my new-found friend spends all my money on the ammo I asked him to buy, then he spots the 1860 Army and buys it anyway since he knows I've been looking for one at the right price.

So now HE bought the gun, using his own money. I think we agree that it's 100 percent, squeaky clean legal if he gives it to me because I'm such a great guy, yes?

Suppose, though, that he hands it to me (through an FFL transfer, of course) and I pay him for it. Is it a straw sale then? After all, he used HIS money (my money was already spent on ammo). He WAS the actual purchaser -- even though his intention was to transfer it to me as soon as possible.

Then we ratchet things up another notch: He spent all my money on ammo, but we live in an era of cell phones. He spies the 1860 Colt so he calls me from the show: "Hey, I just spotted a cheap 1860 Colt, just like you've been talking about. The price is right. Shall I grab it for you?" What then if I say, "Yeah, grab it"? He's STILL using his money, but now he already knows he will be completely reimbursed.

It seems to me that this entire case hinges not on the transfer but on the answer he gave to one question on the 4473, and I just don't see that he lied on the form. ESPECIALLY not when he had asked not one but THREE FFLs and they ALL told him what he wanted to do was legal. Words are supposed to have meaning, and "lie" does not means the same thing as "make a factual mistake." Heck, I know for a fact that I once made an incorrect statement under oath in a deposition. I didn't lie -- I was wrong in my recollection of an event that had taken place two years previous, and I wasn't aware that my statement was incorrect until six months after the deposition. Did I perjure myself? No, not in my eyes, and not in the eyes of the law. I told the truth as I understood it to be at the moment. Why should it be any different when you're checking a box on a piece of paper?

[Brian Pfleuger]

The key difference is that there's not a statute on the books that makes that kind of thing a crime with Mustangs, or just about any other object. But we all know that there is such a statute with respect to firearms.

Yes, it's silly. We all know that it's silly. The courts, however, are not in the business of determining the wisdom (or silliness) of statutes.

I know, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating me that we have elected and continue to elect politicians, and accept their appointments of bureaucrats, who continue to create and enforce stupid, illogical laws. A law that I don't agree with is one thing, there are differences of opinion. Laws and interpretations that might as well come from Wonderland are another thing all together.

[lcpiper]

By born2climb;
Was a crime committed with the gun? If not, then WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL???

By Tom Servo;
Why single this guy out?

By Tater
The Agent that pushed this……..Well, who knows what his motives are...

By Tom Servo;
What's odd is that prosecutors decided to circle the wagons around Abramski and bring out the pitchforks, while those conducting intentional straw buys routinely get off the hook.

And what did they convict Al Capone for?


It's just a thought, but it isn't too far out there. Maybe they just want to get there hands on this guy so he can't disappear on them while they pull together proof of his involvement in the bank robbery. Abramski is already a suspect isn't he?


On a side note, back to the check and the money. Businesses don't consider a check as payment until it clears the bank, it's a promise of payment, but it isn't payment as far as I can see, not the way mine are treated anyway.

And second, Father and Son. I can't say how many times things have come up between my Father and I where one has promised to pay the other, and sometimes it goes that way and sometimes it doesn't. We have this routine where we both insist on paying but neither of us can predict exactly how it will actually turn out. It's almost like a protracted game of "Who's got the check?" at the restaurant. I'm just saying, things just are not black and white between a Father and Son.

[TATER]

Brian, Talk Frustrating! Watch a group of Thugs dressed in red choreograph and direct from 20-30 feet away . The females look back running their fingers down the glass tables until they see the thugs nod their heads…. Well of course she buying it for herself.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

One of the major purchasers in the Fast & Furious operation got 41 months, but a guy with no intention of wrongdoing and no harm done gets the book thrown at him.

That hits a nerve with me as well. The 41 monthes was evidently a PASS.

I know, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating me that we have elected and continue to elect politicians, and accept their appointments of bureaucrats, who continue to create and enforce stupid, illogical laws. A law that I don't agree with is one thing, there are differences of opinion. Laws and interpretations that might as well come from Wonderland are another thing all together.

My take on it as well. To me there should be a clause that allows a person to buy and transfer so long as they knew them personally and that they were not a felon, had felonious intent, or mentally unstable.

Brian, Talk Frustrating! Watch a group of Thugs dressed in red choreograph and direct from 20-30 feet away . The females look back running their fingers down the glass tables until they see the thugs nod their heads…. Well of course she buying it for herself.

First point is that most "Thugs" get thier guns from the streets. Secondly there is a big difference from someone like me purchasing a pistol for my sister with her money and getting more time than a gun runner for a mexican drug cartel.

Problem is the law is casting a wide net posibly and probably catching the wrong fish then throwing them in with the lot. Not to mention the posibility of being prosecuted by a bunch of antis who hate me and have pity for a real criminal.

My beef is with the obvious holes n the law and not with whether or not Abramski was guilty of another crime and they got him on a different one like they did Mr. Capone

[ThesNazud]

Thanks Spats, I never fully understood how they determined it, except the obvious, so I was a little confused...