Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Dean Obeidallah, Daily Beast: The Supreme Court did something today I didn't think was possible: It actually disagreed with the National Rifle Association. ... In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected pleas by the NRA to essentially gut safeguards implemented to prevent the "straw" purchases of guns. Instead, the Court held that if you lie about whom you are purchasing a firearm for, you will have committed a crime under federal law. It's that simple.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The NRA wants to make it easier for straw purchasers to buy guns for others without fear of criminal prosecution, undermining legal safeguards to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. In fact, this isn't the first time the NRA has tried this argument. Just last year, we saw the NRA lobby Congress in an effort to weaken a proposed law that would've increased penalties for straw purchasers of firearms.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"In this case, it's undisputed that Abramski lied when providing information on this federal form. Pretty cut and dry, right? Well, not to the NRA. The group filed a 37-page "friend of the court" brief arguing that the trial court's conviction of Abramski should be overturned.

The NRA first asserted that since the defendant's uncle was not prohibited by law from owning a gun, the defendant should in essence be given amnesty for lying on the federal form. But then the NRA went even further.

It argued that the question of who is the "actual buyer" of the gun should be stricken from the form because it was not promulgated properly under federal law.

What does that really mean? The NRA wants to make it easier for straw purchasers to buy guns for others without fear of criminal prosecution, undermining legal safeguards to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms.

In fact, this isn't the first time the NRA has tried this argument. Just last year, we saw the NRA lobby Congress in an effort to weaken a proposed law that would've increased penalties for straw purchasers of firearms."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-17 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

obligatory

www.youtube.com

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-17 01:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Meaningless in private FTF, online, or gangbanger sales ....nice try.

#3 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-17 04:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I await the round up of all the people in California that lied on their NICS forms. Just cross-reference the state registry with the state medical marijuana list.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-17 07:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

It would have been a better story if the purchaser & receiver of the weapon in question were career criminals, rather than a guy who violated the letter of the law and of whom was made an example.

#5 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-17 07:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

The guy that received the gun was a criminal (the guy the straw purchase was made for). That's how the straw purchase came to light.

#6 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-06-17 07:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

The guy that received the gun was a criminal (the guy the straw purchase was made for). That's how the straw purchase came to light.

#6 | POSTED BY KUDZU AT 2014-06-17 07:56 AM | FLAG:

No. The ex-police officer who purchased the gun was later falsely accused of bank robbery. The person the gun was transferred to is/was at the time legally able to own a gun. The false robbery accusation is what caused the purchase lie to surface, which is was prosecuted.

It was all done for a 5% police discount the buyer wasn't actually entitled to as he was no longer a cop.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-17 08:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

The guy that received the gun was a criminal (the guy the straw purchase was made for). That's how the straw purchase came to light.

#6 | Posted by kudzu

Once again, you are full of it. The cop and the uncle were both legal gun buyers. THAT is what the case was ALL about.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-17 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

#7 You got the facts right; it was done to get an undeserved discount.

But it was prosecuted to say to all future straw buyers that's there's no excuse good enough to deliberately violate the law, and no matter why you choose to do it, it's wrong.

#9 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-06-17 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Glad to see it upheld. While I don't know that the law does much good in general, seems to many dodges around it. I am a big fan of enforcing existing gun law before we make new ones and am happy to see exiting law both enforced and held up.

#10 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-06-17 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Predictably, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts bent over backwards to find some seemingly reasonable ground to strike down the law, playing the "we don't know what congress meant, so Congress should change the law to make its intentions more clear" card. Of course, those four know that a repub Congress is as likely to pass gun control as it is to pass up on a tax break for billionaires. All those four justices care about is reaching a particular result. Luckily for those of us who don't adhere to the NRA's nonexistent definition of a "well regulated militia", Kennedy decided not to play that game this time.

Once again, for the progressive "both parties are the same" crowd, any justices appointed by President Romney or President McCain, or any other Repub president could have easily shifted this decision. Keep that in mind when you decide to throw away your next vote in protest. There are literally thousands of existing and prospective laws and regulations that could disappear in a puff of conservative judicial activism tomorrow.

#11 | Posted by censored at 2014-06-17 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

While the intent of the law is notable, and the fact that the SC upheld the law is the right thing to do. I would like to see a provision in the law where a person can purchase a firearm for another as a gift. Of course the receiving persons information would have to accompany the purchase as well as the purchasers. The purchasers would have to know the receiver of the firearm well enough to provide the information. This would allow for a husband to give a wife a firearm for Christmas, or a father to give a son a small shotgun for hunting season. Of course the gun control crowd, would never go for this, but the fact that the law has been upheld, which was the right thing to do, a small adjustment seems to be in order.

#12 | Posted by Anon451 at 2014-06-17 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Eric Holder enough said.

#13 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2014-06-17 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

The NRA wants to make it easier for straw purchasers to buy guns for others without fear of criminal prosecution, undermining legal safeguards to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms.

#1 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-06-17 12:59 AM | REPLY | FLA

Corky are you saying Fast and Furious type operations would be hampered by such laws ?

#14 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2014-06-17 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, as a defense attorney I'm not sure I agree with the majority in this case. As Scalia points out, where there is ambiguity in a statute passed by Congress, the courts traditionally rule on the ambiguity in favor of a defendant. Basically, tie goes to the runner. In the current case, Scalia is correct in his dissent. I feel that the majority bent over backwards to ignore the ambiguity in favor of gun control and taking a stand against gun proliferation in light of all the recent shootings and the seeming powerlessness of law enforcement to do anything.

#15 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-06-17 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Just recently the liars at the NRA agreed to pay a $63,000 fine to the Rhode Island Board of Elections. I would like to thank the rank and file dues paying members for their very generous .. "donation"

Sammy in Rhode Island and Arizona

Fools are easily parted from their money

#16 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-17 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

I saw this case reported Monday and decided against posting it because it is an ordinary statutory interpretation case without the appeal of a Second Amendment argument. Yet, I see someone found an angle to beat up the favorite straw man of the anti-gun crowd.

Let's look at the flip side. How about the amici brief of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence? In particular, the first paragraph of the introduction to the brief and used later in its merits argument. The center, in a stretch of intellectual honestly, scares the reader with the horrific facts of a criminal that set his house on fire and ambushed the first responders.

The center conspicuously fails to mention the criminal was a felon that spent 17 years in prison for murdering his mother. In other words, a felon that was an ineligible "transferee" under the statute at issue. A fact pattern irrelevant to the issue before the court--an eligible "transferee."

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-17 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Let's look at the flip side.

"look! Over there!"

Anywhere but at the NRA man behind the curtain.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-17 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Eric Holder enough said.

#13 | Posted by ATaxpayer

The NRA believes responsible gun ownership.

Nuff said.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-17 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ugly truth, most crimes committed with a gun are done with stolen guns. Think a gun safe is going to help, the thieves just get a hand truck and take the entire thing. Laws do not prevent the criminals from acquiring guns. Laws do not prevent criminals from using them. If I sell a fire arm to a person that I bought a few years ago, is it a straw buy? If so, now I am a criminal. Under this law I am responsible for the person I sell it to.

#20 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-06-17 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ugly truth, most crimes committed with a gun are done with stolen guns.

If we got rid of legal guns, there would be fewer guns for criminals to steal...

Just my two cents.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-17 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

If we got rid of legal guns, there would be fewer guns for criminals to steal...Posted by snoofy
Way to many gun owners are lax in securing their guns, making it easy for criminals to acquire weapons. Also we read daily about children who are injured or killed by unsecured guns

Never forget the 20 first graders murdered in New Town Connecticut
The NRA and the GOP would like us to forget ...but I will not

#22 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-17 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Think a gun safe is going to help,thieves just get a hand truck and take the entire thing.| Posted by docnjo

My neighbor put his gun safe in his garage, it is embedded in 6 inches of cement, a tornado could knock his house down but the safe will still be sanding.

#23 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-17 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Love the headline...it implies that the NRA is right most of the time

#24 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2014-06-17 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Straw purchases clearly are a problem.

#25 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-17 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Straw purchases clearly are a problem.

Yes, if only purchases for tranferees that use the transaction to evade their personal ineligibility to legally purchase a gun are considered.

For those who use the transaction for legal purposes (both the buyer and the transferee can legally purchase), such as this case, not so much.

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-17 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Think a gun safe is going to help,thieves just get a hand truck and take the entire thing.| Posted by docnjo

the majority of safes bolt into the floor and/or walls.

#27 | Posted by Scotty at 2014-06-18 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort