SCOTUS re straw purchases

[jiminthe burg]

Hope this link " comes thru " so it can be opened directly.
I do not think I would have done exactly what this guy did.  Here in NC, you must have either a concealed carry permit or a purchase permit issued by the Sheriffs Dept to legally buy a handgun. Thought  a person was going to ask me to purchase a handgun for him and hold it until he could get either but he did not. Glad it did not work out and with this ruling, I will never do that.

http://www.wral.com/supreme-court-ru...-law/13736875/

[Patriot]

A few facts about this case:

1. He received money from the final buyer BEFORE he purchased the firearm.
2. He checked NO on the box asking if he was buying for someone else (he lied on the form and signed his name).

I would have to agree with the Supreme Court on this one. Although I disagree with the rule itself. If I want to buy a gun for my friend as a gift, and I know he isn't prohibited from owning a firearm, there should be a separate box to check notifying them that you are giving it away as a gift and you agree to let an FFL handle the transfer.

[sqlbullet]

yeah.  I have a problem with the whole straw purchase law...But regardless, this was a clear violation of the law.  SCOTUS ruled good here.

[redbaron007]

Having seen this on several other sites, I can't recall which one, but there is a gift allowance.

However, even as much as I dislike this question, I believe they made the correct call; based upon the totality of the facts. Bottom line, you can't lie on the that form. 

[ctious]

Amazes me how many on here are ok with unconstitutional laws.  The second amendment says shall not be infringed.  But yet guys in here are ok with the laws that infringe on that right.  Amazing.   

Sad also. 

[spaniel]

Amazes me how many on here are ok with unconstitutional laws.  The second amendment says shall not be infringed.  But yet guys in here are ok with the laws that infringe on that right.  Amazing.   

Sad also.

The person who wanted the gun could have bought it for himself.  Instead someone took payment for it, and lied about it on a federal form, to purchase it 2nd person.

This has nothing to do about infringement of someone's 2nd Amendment rights.

There are no rights in the Constitution free from any restrictions whatsoever.  You can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.

I do think the question should be clearer regarding gifts and is insufficient as currently worded.

[ctious]

Amazes me how many on here are ok with unconstitutional laws.  The second amendment says shall not be infringed.  But yet guys in here are ok with the laws that infringe on that right.  Amazing.   

Sad also.

The person who wanted the gun could have bought it for himself.  Instead someone took payment for it, and lied about it on a federal form, to purchase it 2nd person.

This has nothing to do about infringement of someone's 2nd Amendment rights.

There are no rights in the Constitution free from any restrictions whatsoever.  You can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.

I do think the question should be clearer regarding gifts and is insufficient as currently worded.

It has everything to do with it.  All limiting bills on arms should be unconstitutional.  NFA. Brady Bill.  They infringed.  Should not be legal.   If you read the constitution. You will see something in the 2nd that makes it free from restrictions. Shall not be infrringed. 

Requiring people to pay money out for check.  Running check is infringing.  The courts rules poll taxes illegal. So why is it ok to tax the second?   

I say if the 2nd can be infringed this way we need to start charging to vote and doing a background check on each person before they can vote.   If you are found to have ever done anything wrong you are barred from voting and taken to jail for attempting to vote.   

That would put them as equal.  Even though voting does not have the same strong wording that the second does to protect it from government infringement. 

[mag360]

my opinion but it was reflected by justice scalia as well.

since he was convicted for lying on a federal form and no prohibited person laws were broken what if the question was "do you like the color blue" and if you in fact do not like the color blue but you answer the form yes, could they arrest you for lying and charge you for perjury?

The only reason the court upheld this was because they didnt want to start undoing the legislative branch handiwork in the 1968 gun control act.  The majority opinion hinged on the ideas that : tracking guns is good, we need to track guns, this question helps us track guns because it makes the purchaser put their name on a federal paper, and the government said it is for public safety and we all really like public safety.

[redbaron007]

Amazes me how many on here are ok with unconstitutional laws.  The second amendment says shall not be infringed.  But yet guys in here are ok with the laws that infringe on that right.  Amazing.   

Sad also.

The person who wanted the gun could have bought it for himself.  Instead someone took payment for it, and lied about it on a federal form, to purchase it 2nd person.

This has nothing to do about infringement of someone's 2nd Amendment rights.

There are no rights in the Constitution free from any restrictions whatsoever.  You can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.

I do think the question should be clearer regarding gifts and is insufficient as currently worded.

It has everything to do with it.  All limiting bills on arms should be unconstitutional.  NFA. Brady Bill.  They infringed.  Should not be legal.   If you read the constitution. You will see something in the 2nd that makes it free from restrictions. Shall not be infrringed. 

Requiring people to pay money out for check.  Running check is infringing.  The courts rules poll taxes illegal. So why is it ok to tax the second?   

I say if the 2nd can be infringed this way we need to start charging to vote and doing a background check on each person before they can vote.   If you are found to have ever done anything wrong you are barred from voting and taken to jail for attempting to vote.   

That would put them as equal.  Even though voting does not have the same strong wording that the second does to protect it from government infringement.

Whats your definition of 'infringed'? This is the crux of the matter. What the courts and your opinion are, are probable two different one; therefore, it opens the door for interpretation.

Poll tax vs 2A? Where is the correlation?

[gandog56]

It has everything to do with it.  All limiting bills on arms should be unconstitutional.  NFA. Brady Bill.  They infringed.  Should not be legal.   If you read the constitution. You will see something in the 2nd that makes it free from restrictions. Shall not be infrringed. 

I'm an avid gun owner, but I have to disagree with you here. Nobody's right was infringed. What was wrong was him making a false statement on a Federal Form, probably just so his uncle could get a discount.

Perjury is not a right.