U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Abramski Straw-Purchase Case
A narrowly-divided U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal ban on “straw” purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own firearm. In Abramski v. United States, the justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a man who purchased a firearm on behalf of his uncle, using funds provided by the uncle, with the intention of giving the gun to his uncle who was not prohibited from owning firearms. The case began after Bruce James Abramski bought a handgun in Virginia, in 2009 on behalf of his uncle using his uncle’s money and later transferred it to him in Pennsylvania through a firearms retailer after a background check of the uncle. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the “actual buyer” of the weapon even though he was really acting on his uncle’s behalf but buying the gun using a police discount available to him.
Background of the Case
The case of Abramski v. United States, arises from the prosecution of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former Virginia police officer, for allegedly making a “straw purchase” of a Glock handgun. Abramski had lawfully purchased a Glock pistol in Virginia, then later resold the Glock to his uncle, a resident of Pennsylvania. Both purchases were conducted through FFLs, with full background checks, and both parties were legally entitled to own a handgun. Abramski arranged the sale in this fashion to take advantage of a discount available to him as a law enforcement officer.
Abramski was indicted and prosecuted for violating Federal laws against “straw purchases”, specifically making a false declaration on BATFE Form 4473, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Abramski challenged the indictment, but the District Court ruled against him and the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court. However, the Fourth Circuit found a split of authority among the Circuits as to whether § 922(a)(6) applied where the ultimate recipient of the firearm was lawfully entitled to buy a gun himself. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with previous decisions by the Fifth Circuit holding that “straw purchaser” laws are NOT violated if both the original purchaser and secondary buyer are legally entitled to own a firearm. See United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997).
The key issue was whether Abramski committed a crime by buying a gun, and then promptly re-selling it to another person who was legally entitled to own the firearm. The government argued that Abramski broke the law when he checked a box on Form 4473 indicating he was the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm”.
Similar Posts:
- U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Firearms ‘Straw Purchaser’ Case
- Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Landmark Second Amendment Case
- Landmark Gun Rights Case Headed to U.S. Supreme Court
- Federal Judge Rules California Ammo Laws Are Unconstitutional
- U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Hunting Videos Are Protected by First Amendment
Wonder why anyone would have considered his purchase as questionable…
They’re arguing intent, which would only be known if the cop admitted he was buying FOR someone else. Maybe he brought that on himself.
Otherwise, every bit of his actions were done correctly. No harm done.
What else is new? SCOTUS is a tyrannical, evil organization. Why would they respect the 2nd Amendment or the fact that this went through proper channels? Why would one even investigate this? SCOTUS has a history of being wrong. They also upheld slavery.
Form 4473 is quite clear. You either are, or, are not, the “actual buyer”.
This decision is nonsensical. The straw purchase law is meant to prevent the transfer of firearms to restricted people. It should only be a crime if the person knowingly transfers the firearm to a felon, or intentionally stays uninformed of the buyer’s status in order to willfully circumvent the law. In this case both men passed background checks during the transfer process.
He was the actual buyer of the firearm. He paid for it and took possession of it. He then legally sold it to a person who could legally own it. This a made-up procedural crime and its only purpose is to harass and intimidate gun owners.
Does this mean I can send my kid to store to buy booze, because he is not the actual buyer?
The “actual buyer” fills out and signs the form. In this case, the “actual buyer” was the uncle. He bought the gun with the “intention” of giving it to his uncle and used the money from his uncle to purchase it.
Seems like a pretty harsh result (a felony criminal conviction for Abramski) especially since, as a part of things, Abramski and his uncle went through the proper process to “transfer” the firearm from Abramski to the uncle. Under this logic, if a father buys a 22 for his son to use in the local gun club junior rifle program with the intent to ultimately give it to him someday, and then when the son turns 18, he takes him to the gun store and has it transferred to the son, it seems the father may have committed a felony crime on the original purchase.
For those who are concerned – as I am – about whether this ruling will affect purchases as a gift, see this article and note that NSSF is already engaging with ATF to clarify – http://www.ammoland.com/2014/06/supreme-court-decision-on-straw-purchases-does-not-make-gift-purchases-illegal/#axzz357F8ugXz
The intent is sadly straw due to the money and discount not being his. But if he had used the pistol in competition/practice before passing it on then I think the ruling may have been different.
This all started because one cheap ass was helping another cheap ass to spend $20.00 less on a firearm.
This ruling is nonsense..What difference does it make if I buy I gun and I decide to sell it legally to a relative which is entitled to posses a firearm? A person who buys it is the actual buyer.
The situation of course change when the buyer buys a gun with the intention to give that gun to a felon.That is a straw purchase.
Police found the receipt for the sale to the uncle while searching the home of Abramski in connection with another crime!
What he did was illegal. A straw purchase is a straw purchase, no matter if you are a felon or can legally own a gun.
“Warning: you are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm to you”.
Read before you sign anything! Abramski was sentenced to 5 years probation.
Dumbass LEO & damn the 5 Judges that held it in their court’s findings as guilty. All 5 of these Mbrs of the Brady Bunch??? Just another reason that acquiring good, used firearms through local estate-type auctions is a great deal. Only morally committed to doing what’s right…it’s the criminal element buying this way that would concern me, when I stop to think about it.
I believe that this “intention” argument is bogus. You basically can be accused of having “the intention” to transfer a gun to someone else every time when you buy a gun and for any reason you decide not to keep it.
Also, it seem that this ruling is the precursor of “what you buy for yourself” you cannot transfer to someone else in other words to discourage people for even legally transferring guns among themselves which is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.What law will follow this ruling is not hard to guess…The right of the people to keep and bear arms is eroded every passing day…
The former police officer, Abramski, was, and is, a criminal. Former, due to him being fired by a police department in Roanoke VA. for theft! Read the boldface warning on the form. It’s illegal… plain and simple.
Well it appears that they were out to get him, and there must have been concession of his intent along the way..
I seriously doubt my purchase of a gun in NC, and later transferring to a relative in PA, both through FFL, would cause concern from anyone. Why would it?
After all, If were not the actual buyer, the dealer could not transfer to me. And if my brother was not the actual buyer, a dealer could not transfer to him.
Richard, I think you need to post a few more times, I am not sure I got it, is a straw purchase illegal? BTW you would make a great supreme court justice.
From my reading, the ruling was by “the letter of the law”. The flawless legal method for the uncle to acquire the Glock would have been VA FFL transfer to PA FFL, and then by 4473 to uncle. Abramski’s mistake was taking possession of the gun.