Abramski v. United States
This case may be a pivotal 2A case going forward. Short version is a guy bought a gun for his uncle, who is not a prohibited person. And he was prosecuted. Given that supposed “straw purchases” were prosecuted 44 times out of 48,321 instances, so it’s not a big priority. But this case is being prosecuted despite the gun being transferred to someone who is not a prohibited person. Emily Miller thinks this case could end some Obama’s gun control plans.
January 23rd, 2014 at 6:45 pm
That is going to be a good case. Nothing like the ATFU interpreting the law place of the Courts and Congress.
Its hilarious that the assistant solicitor actually admitted they were usurping power.
January 23rd, 2014 at 10:20 pm
The really absurd thing is that he transferred the pistol to his uncle via FFL. In other words, not only was the uncle not a prohibited person, but the uncle went through a NICS check before he even took possession of the gun. So there’s absolutely no way the government could argue that what the nephew did was of any danger to society.
January 24th, 2014 at 6:16 am
According to the linked Emily Miller piece in the Washington Times, the gun was legally obtained in one state by an individual who could legally obtain and possess a firearm under the laws of state #1 and the federal government, legally transported to another state in compliance with federal law and the laws of both states (and, I presume, in compliance with the laws of any states transited), delivered to a Federal Firearms Licensee for transfer to a resident of state #2 – in accordance with both federal law and the laws of state #2 – and the resident of state #2 legally took possession in accordance and compliance within the established legal procedures of the federal government and state #2.
So, how is this any different from what happens thousands of times a day with Gunbroker and UPS? Does ATF contend that: a) interstate transactions involving entities like Gunbroker and UPS are violations of federal law, or; b) there is a “minimum period of possession” required before a firearm can be legally transferred? If so, what is that “minimum period of possession”? or; c) only commercial carriers may legally transport firearms for sale across state lines?
The only possible grounds I see for ATF getting involved here might be “engaging in the firearms business without an FFL” and that would be an extremely thin case, as it would stand on prohibiting sale of one’s personal property in general.
It almost certainly won’t happen in this instance, but this case could form the foundation of future elimination of much of the interstate transfer restrictions.
January 24th, 2014 at 11:56 pm
A couple years back I wanted to loan a handgun for a few months to my brother in law, visiting me in TX from CO. We determined that me giving it to him anywhere other than via a full NICS check, FFL transfer would put us both at jeopardy of arrest for an unlawful interstate transfer, by checking the ATF website.
He got himself a plinker .22LR handgun back in CO to carry on hikes on his property (for rattlesnake control) instead of taking one of mine, because he didn’t want the hassle.
This case looks like every t was crossed and every line was dotted.
January 28th, 2014 at 4:04 pm
@Alien:
They are prosecuting because the 4473 asks if you are buying this for yourself, and not another person. He responded he was getting it for himself.
Gifts are apparently out of bounds these days: “I intend to buy a gun for myself, because I want to gift it to someone close to me.”
If you’ve ever bought a gift gun for someone, this case logic would make you a felon.