Supreme Court deals rare blow to gun purchases

once again ignored the constitution and what is best for the american people and did what their corp owners told them to do

Until we get these criminals out of our justice system we are just playing around the corners

Not at all surprised by Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas.

beyond that yet

I buy a .22 rifle for my child and say I am the owner. I then give/transfer it as a present some days later. Who is to know? Does the OP have any thoughts on the matter?

That's the whole point of most laws. Also, if it is in your name or your kid's name, as long as you are his legal guardian, you should be held responsible for his actions regarding the gun.

and what my kid does or doesn't do with the firearm is not the issue. According to the law all I have to do is buy the firearm and when questioned say that I am the purchaser. Once I get home, if I decide to give/transfer the firearm to another non-prohibited person the law does not apply. Looks like the purchaser messed up by filling out the form as if was the "purchaser" then made a statement of some sort to say his uncle was the actual purchaser. The court had little option but to rule the way it did or invalidate the law regarding straw purchases. As a former LEO one would think he would get better legal advice.

Restrictive laws about what is done in private don't usually work. How people conduct themselves in the public arena is a whole other ballgame.

are in prison for violating those "unenforceable" laws. Another bunch of people are also in prison for what they do "in private" (drugs). Clearly, if one breaks the law in a public arena it is much easier to be detected and, therefore, prosecuted.

Jails and prisons are always full of low hanging fruit.

Maybe you meant to say that in spite of prosecution the population in general has decided to continue to carry out a certain behavior. That doesn't mean the law is not enforceable; just that is has no visible deterrent effect. Like speed limits; many are stopped, cited and fined yet people continue to violate the posted speed limit.

Restrictive laws regarding personal behavior conducted in private is extremely difficult to enforce. Remember we were talking about the illegal transfer of a firearm. About as enforceable as passing a joint, unless it happens in the open.
Education is far more effective than legislation when it comes to behavioral modification.

convicted and fined/imprisoned then the law is enforced. It may make no dent in the overall behavior but the law is being enforced.

Keeps those paychecks coming in for LE and the corporate prison system.

You start with "gun laws are generally unenforceable" and wind up with a rant about "the corporate prison system". If you want to critique the 800 gorilla in the room look at privatized misdemeanor probation. A citation for driving with no headlights could cost someone about $2000. That's just crazy.

and then traveled to Pennsylvania to transfer it to his uncle at a gun store to do a background check on the uncle. His uncle was not comfortable in choosing/buying a gun so he asked his nephew, a former LEO to buy one for him. The purchaser was trying to do the right thing, but apparently did not know the laws about interstate transfers. I really do not see a problem with what he did. Had he not gone to the gunshop and just gave it to his uncle, that would have been highly illegal.

of a gun for his uncle was 'caught' because he went to an FFL holder to transfer the gun to his uncle. If the guy would have called it a gift, he would not have been cited.

Nothing has changed.

Question 11a on Form 4473 is, "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?" In the case in question, the firearm was purchased by one individual on behalf of another for the simple reason of taking advantage of the police discount from a particular retailer. The third party was not a prohibited person. While this transaction may have violated the letter of the law it did not breach the intent of said law which is, obviously, to prevent prohibited individuals from using a straw buyer to obtain firearms. If the buyer named on the 4473 had purchased the gun and simply gifted it to his uncle, there would have been no violation. And if, a few weeks later, the uncle had given his nephew the 400 bucks (or whatever) that's also just fine. (You'd have to prove it isn't and that's all but an impossible task.)

Some state laws may vary but so far as Federal law is concerned, I can still give (or sell) whatever I want to whomever I want so long as the recipient is not prohibited from owning firearms. If I agree to purchase a firearm on behalf of another person, however, that is where I run afoul of the law. Commentators on both sides of this issue are getting it wrong and presuming that the decision is far more broad than it really is.

Wouldn't that be a violation of the law?

they did a transfer through an FFL in the uncle's state.

This is really a poorly executed case that may have violated the technical wording of the law but did not violate the spirit of the law. They tried to do the right thing and got caught in the bad wording of the law.

Nothing has changed here. The purchaser still has to answer the relevant question on the form under penalty of perjury.

Is that what you meant to say?

Husband takes wife to a gun show because he wants her to pick out a gun for herself. She then goes around "trying out" and decides on one. Husband has a CCW, fills out paperwork saying he is the owner, and pays for the gun. He says that he is using his information because he has a CCW and it will be processed faster than if his wife's name is used.

I said this was a straw purchase because there was an ulterior motive in using the CCW's name. Speeding up the background check process. Personally, I think if a gun is being given as gift to a family member that family member should also have to pass a background check in order to be gifted a gun.

IIRC, there is a gift and raffle exemption. One of the points of the gift exemption is so that parent can purchase for their minor child. If you gave him the money before hand, then it would be a straw purchase.
The ATF allows most states, if state's record keeping is to ATF standards, waive the background check if there is a CCW. The ATF allows Florida and Wyoming to. Last I checked, the ATF doesn't allow New York.
If you are talking about a handgun in Florida, the CCW also waives Florida's three day (which is really three working day) waiting period.

They determined that the definition of a straw purchase extends to the 2nd party purchase of a firearm, even for a person who can legally buy it themselves.

That's a "Blow"?

The gun control fans must really be getting desperate for a "success" to celebrate.

In the meantime in Colorado ... Gov. Hickenlooper (D) is apologizing to the Colorado Sheriffs, for not listening to them before he signed the gun control package last year. He's also admitting that he didn't actually take any time to review the new law and relied on the Senate majority leaders for his input. (Sure, why not throw Morse and Giron under the bus, they're already out of office anyway .)

It's only 5 months to the election and the gun control package is still not polling well in areas Hickenlooper needs to stay in office.