Georgia Packing banner

21 - 40 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,102 Posts
I would go with "A". Legal purchases are exactly that; legal. It is the illegal transfer that is a crime, not the initial purchase. The Feds are just trying to expand the law to make it easier to prosecute someone. Define the purchase as a crime and you have an ironclad paper trail. Define the transfer as a crime and you might actually have to work to gather evidence and obtain a conviction.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Q: By what authority does the Federal gov't require a 4473 in order to sell a firearm at gun store?
A: Why, they're regulating interstate commerce.
Q: What interstate commerce would that be?
A: The firearm. It was probably shipped to the gun store.
Q: That interstate commerce already occurred and is over and done with. It was already regulated. The guy is just buying something at a local store.
A: Well, the parts used to make it probably traveled interstate at some point and were shipped to a manufacturer.
Q: Again, that commerce already occurred was was already regulated. They aren't parts anymore. The manufacturer used the parts to make a firearm.
A: Well, it still needs to be regulated.
Q: What does, the interstate commerce which is long since over and done with and is no longer occurring?
A: Er... yes?
:screwy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,587 Posts
What I don't want is to eliminate private transfers and that is what the ATF is attempting to do with this case. This is just another attempt to eliminate the non existent "Gun Show Loophole". That is what the ATF and this administration are attempting. Lets face it I don't want to have to pass a background check to buy a book from you either. Both are Constitutionally protected rights.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
ber950 said:
Lets face it I don't want to have to pass a background check to buy a book from you either. Both are Constitutionally protected rights.
If you want to later sell that book to someone, should they have to pass a background check?

Remember, at some point either the book itself or some of the materials (ink, paper, etc) used to make that book probably moved commercially from one State to another... or could have move commercially from one State to another... or potentially arguably reasonably maybe might have there was nothing stopping it from moving one State to another.

Hey man, books are dangerous you know. They give people ideas, and ideas start wars. :panic: Gotta make sure no one gets any ideas who shouldn't have them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,587 Posts
I see you got my point.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,159 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting, Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)​
 

·
انا باتمان
Joined
·
11,745 Posts

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,015 Posts
okay

okay, I can see the logic of this.

If Congress passed all these laws requiring a registration form like the Form 4473, and if Congress passed the Brady Background Check law mandating an instant background check on retail gun buyers from an FFL dealer, it would make NO SENSE to allow people to do a quick end-run around that procedure by letting them do straw purchases.

Sure, "if" the ultimate transferee of the gun is a prohibited person, that's a crime and always would be even if this straw purchase case were decided the other way.

But the point is, Congress didn't allow gun dealers and gun shoppers to decide when a background check is necessary and when a Form 4473 needs to be done because they know that they person they intend to transfer the gun to later is qualified to own firearms. And when you allow straw purchases, you defeat the ability of the government to do their own database check to try to catch unqualified people from getting guns. You're substituting your judgment and your assessment of that other guy's history and character for the government's (Congressionally-mandated) procedure that says the true buyer of the gun must PERSONALLY fill out the forms and submit HIS REAL NAME, with I.D., to be checked.

I think ATF's and the U.S. Attoney's Office's position is consistent with what Congress intended. If that's a problem and we want to make straw purchases legal, we might as well just get Congress to amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 again and let Congress officially approve of this loophole that lets people bypass the identification and background check procedures. Or get Congress to repeal them entirely, and just get each gun buyer to self-certify that no matter who they are (no names, no addresses) they swear that they're law-abiding citizens and will only transfer the gun later to other law-abiding citizens. ;)

(that last sentence was sarcasm, by the way)
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,887 Posts
Makes sense when you think of it under the guise of 4473's, Licenses, and Background checks.

Just wish we could go back to "shall not be infringed." Even if just for semi-auto handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Seriously.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,951 Posts
You're substituting your judgment and your assessment of that other guy's history and character for the government's
I don't see a problem here...
 

·
انا باتمان
Joined
·
11,745 Posts
Makes sense when you think of it under the guise of 4473's, Licenses, and Background checks.

Just wish we could go back to "shall not be infringed." Even if just for semi-auto handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Seriously.
You have to ask yourself if the state has an interest in making sure certain individuals don't have access to firearms, such as people that have a history of using guns to commit crimes, people that through due process are found to be a danger to themselves or others. If you can see your way to yes on that question, then the next logical question is what power to you grant the government to assert that interest, yes?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,015 Posts
analogy

an analogy:

How would you feel about somebody doing a "straw purchase" of prescription narcotics for another person, with that other person who will ultimately get them being a person who is genuinely in need of them for medical reasons, and who COULD get a prescription from his or her own doctor to be filled at his or her own pharmacy, BUT this friend just does it for her by going to HIS doctor, complaining of the things that SHE is experiencing, and HE gets the prescription in his name, and he fills it at HIS pharmacy, and then hands her the bottle, saying, "here, I saved you the trouble and expense of seeing your doctor and visiting your pharmacy. Enjoy the Xanax!"

She really needs the pills.
She "could have" gotten them the right way.
Instead, he helped her get them the wrong way, leaving no record of her as a patient or being lawfully prescribed this drug.

Is this a crime? Should it be a crime? Does the government have a legitimate interest in making laws against regular people helping others avoid the laws and regulations regarding controlled substances?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
The average person on the street would consider the regulations in question and their application to be reasonable. That being said, I'm surprised the decision wasn't 6-3 or 7-2.
 

·
:) :) :)
Joined
·
12,566 Posts
an analogy:

How would you feel about somebody doing a "straw purchase" of prescription narcotics for another person, with that other person who will ultimately get them being a person who is genuinely in need of them for medical reasons, and who COULD get a prescription from his or her own doctor to be filled at his or her own pharmacy, BUT this friend just does it for her by going to HIS doctor, complaining of the things that SHE is experiencing, and HE gets the prescription in his name, and he fills it at HIS pharmacy, and then hands her the bottle, saying, "here, I saved you the trouble and expense of seeing your doctor and visiting your pharmacy. Enjoy the Xanax!"

She really needs the pills.
She "could have" gotten them the right way.
Instead, he helped her get them the wrong way, leaving no record of her as a patient or being lawfully prescribed this drug.

Is this a crime? Should it be a crime? Does the government have a legitimate interest in making laws against regular people helping others avoid the laws and regulations regarding controlled substances?
Did it infringe upon the freedom of another?

If the answer is no, then I say go for it. Prescription drugs included.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
There is already crime for giving your prescription drugs to another person. There is not a crime for giving a gun to another person if that person isn't prohibited from owning a gun.

Imagine if the ATF decided on its own that in order to buy alcohol, you had to sign a form saying you bought the alcohol for yourself. It isn't illegal to give alcohol to another person as long as that person is legally allowed to have alcohol.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,951 Posts
How would you feel about somebody doing a "straw purchase" of prescription narcotics for another person, with that other person who will ultimately get them being a person who is genuinely in need of them for medical reasons, and who COULD get a prescription from his or her own doctor to be filled at his or her own pharmacy,
The medical patient is prohibited from possession until they meet specific criteria (i.e. a prescription). The firearms owner is NOT prohibited, until they meet specific criteria which includes due process of law.

To use an apples to apples comparison, if my wife and I both have a prescription for Obecalp HCL then I take issue with anyone who says there is a problem with her filling a scrip and us sharing (or vice-versa). As for who's tracking our usage, that is only poses a problem for bureaucrats who really should be minding their own damn business anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
What's the difference in buying a gun for say a 21yr old niece or daughter for her birthday and buying a gun on sale at a local shop for a friend that's out of town and would miss the sale?
Anything wrong with buying a gun and then realize it's a piece of crap and selling it to someone the same day?
what if you substitute the word rope or car for the word gun in the pevious questions?
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,951 Posts
Yet again we have the government attempting to regulate based on what's in a person's mind, which is impossible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
Supreme Court Upholds Federal Ban on 'Straw' Purchases of Guns

In 5-4 Vote, Justices Rule Firearms Can't Be Purchased for Others

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative swing vote, joined Justice Kagan in the majority along with liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Laying the groundwork for registration.
Congress sought both "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them" and to assist police investigating gun crimes, she wrote. "No part of that scheme would work if the statute turned a blind eye to straw purchases," Justice Kagan said, including provisions requiring licensed gun dealers to clear would-be purchasers through the national instant background-check system.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law only aimed to ensure that "the man at the counter" buying the gun truly was who he said he was "even where that man is in a practical sense a 'conduit' who will promptly transfer the gun to someone else." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined the dissent.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/supr...ral-ban-on-straw-purchases-of-guns-1402932979
 
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
Top