SCOTUS Has Taken a Straw Purchase Case

This guy used his LEO discount, even an LEO didn't know he was breaking the law. Even if they are going after a medic or firefighter, the people that get the Glock discount are generally regarded as "good" people. If the BATF wants to make a point they chose the wrong person to go after.
 
chexmix said:
...even an LEO didn't know he was breaking the law...
Click to expand...
If he had spent some time here he might have been better informed. We've dealt with the subject a number of times. For example here, here, here, and here.

If he had read the instructions on the 4473, it might have given him a clue.

Of course, various folks on this board have commented in the past that it's a bad idea to rely on a state LEO for advice about firearms law, especial federal firearms law.
 
I was way off in my interpretation of what a straw buy was! :o

This is one crazy law. When I think about some of the crazy things our government comes up with I am reminded of how much common sense is left.

If it was not for people sharing things like this I would probably never have the time to get a clear picture of what is really going on. Thanks guys, your the best! :)
 
I understand the interpretation of the law that says this was technically a straw purchase. I'd like to know this:

I haven't read the lower court proceedings. Is there a 2nd amendment claim being made: that forbidding a "straw purchase", when the second transfer is conducted through an FFL thus invalidating any concern that the ultimate recipient might be a prohibited person, is an impermissibly broad restriction on an individual right?

If this case is merely a challenge to the definition of a straw purchase, I'm not very hopeful.
 
tyme said:
...Is there a 2nd amendment claim being made...
Click to expand...
No. The Second Amendment does not appear to have been raised in the Fourth Circuit nor is it touched upon in the petition for a writ of certiorari.
 
Then again, much has changed since the founders wrote the Constitution. The Second doesn't have anything to do with straws...

Seriously, it is illegal to murder someone, whether you strangle them with an extension cord, drown them in a toilet, or beat them to death with a shovel. Until a crime has been committed, I say leave the topic of gun purchase alone. If it's all about keeping guns out of the hands of felons, then define straw purchase as such.
 
Revoltella said:
How did this even pop up on the BATFE's radar?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know that too. It seems to me that if Abramski hadn't done the second FFL transfer (and just handed over the G19), he wouldn't have gotten in any trouble at all.
 
Just to clarify a little of the timeline, from the Fourth's decision:
1) November 15, 2009 -- Alvarez sends Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" in the memo line.
2) November 17, 2009 -- Abramski purchases G19 (and a bunch of other stuff apparently) for cash.
3) November 20, 2009 -- Abramski deposits check.
4) Nobember 21, 2009 -- Abramski transfers handgun via FFL to Alvarez.
Click to expand...

I point to number 4. When I worked at an FFL, all transactions required a 4473, be it us oh a buyer or if two private individuals did the transfer through us. In the later instance, the seller transferred to us, and we transfer to the buyer via a 4473 and in case of a pistol, the state background check as well. Where is the straw purchase? This to me seems more of a fraud thing to end around a discount to someone not elegable for it, NOT a straw purchase..
 
Wreck-n-Crew said:
I was way off in my interpretation of what a straw buy was!
Click to expand...
WnC, you are by no means alone. I don't presume to speak for Frank, but I'd guess that part of the reason he shared this is because we see a lot of mistaken ideas posted about what constitutes a "straw purchase." We have repeatedly seen claims by other posters that "XYZ wasn't a straw purchase because the recipient of the pistol wasn't prohibited."

Revoltella said:
How did this even pop up on the BATFE's radar?
Click to expand...
Obviously, I have no first-hand knowledge of how this happened, but it appears to have been just plain ol' simple sleuthing:
Meanwhile, on November 12, 2009, a bank robbery occurred at Franklin Community Bank in Rocky Mount, Virginia. An investigation of the robbery led the FBI to suspect Abramski. Abramski had been fired from the Roanoke police department in 2007, looked similar to the masked bank robber, and was down on his luck (Abramski and his wife had recently separated and their home was in foreclosure). . . . . two FBI agents investigating the robbery sought and secured search [2] warrants relating to the investigation. The "items to be seized" [under the first warrant] included things believed to be related to the bank robbery, such as a black square duffle bag, a black ski mask, firearms, and the catch-all phrase covering "[a]ny and all articles that appear to be relevant to the commission of a robbery." . . . . specified some of the same items as the first warrant and also included the same catch-all phrase. In executing the search warrant for the Iron Ridge Road property, agents found and seized a green Franklin Community Bank zippered bag containing the written receipt confirming the transfer of the Glock 19 handgun from Abramski to Alvarez on November 21, 2009.
Click to expand...

So, to recreate some more of this timeline:
1) November 12, 2009 -- Bank Robbery in Rocky Mount, VA
2) November 15, 2009 -- Alvarez sends Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" in the memo line.
3) November 17, 2009 -- Abramski purchases G19 (and a bunch of other stuff apparently) for cash at an FFL in Collinsville, some 20-25 miles from Rocky Mount.
4) November 20, 2009 -- Abramski deposits check.
5) Nobember 21, 2009 -- Abramski transfers handgun via FFL to Alvarez.

If I were an FBI agent looking for a bank robber, I'd be looking for someone with large amounts of cash to throw around. Gun shops seem like a pretty good place to be looking, given that I'd be looking for a bank robber . . .

ThesNazud said:
Spats McGee said:
Just to clarify a little of the timeline, from the Fourth's decision:
1) November 15, 2009 -- Alvarez sends Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" in the memo line.
2) November 17, 2009 -- Abramski purchases G19 (and a bunch of other stuff apparently) for cash.
3) November 20, 2009 -- Abramski deposits check.
4) Nobember 21, 2009 -- Abramski transfers handgun via FFL to Alvarez.

I point to number 4. When I worked at an FFL, all transactions required a 4473, be it us oh a buyer or if two private individuals did the transfer through us. In the later instance, the seller transferred to us, and we transfer to the buyer via a 4473 and in case of a pistol, the state background check as well. Where is the straw purchase? This to me seems more of a fraud thing to end around a discount to someone not elegable for it, NOT a straw purchase..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The (alleged) straw purchase is number 2, not number 4.
Fourth Circuit said:
Of importance here, question 11.a. on the ATF Form 4473 stated:
Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.​
 Abramski checked the answer "Yes" to question 11.a. Three days later, on November 20, 2009, the $400 check from Alvarez was deposited in Abramski’s bank account, and the next day Abramski transferred the Glock 19 handgun to Alvarez at a licensed federal firearms dealer in Easton, Pennsylvania. At that time, Alvarez gave Abramski a receipt confirming the transfer, reflecting that Alvarez had purchased the Glock 19 handgun for $400.
Click to expand...
 
Spats McGee said:
Just to clarify a little of the timeline, from the Fourth's decision:
1) November 15, 2009 -- Alvarez sends Abramski a check for $400 with "Glock 19" in the memo line.
2) November 17, 2009 -- Abramski purchases G19 (and a bunch of other stuff apparently) for cash.
3) November 20, 2009 -- Abramski deposits check.
4) Nobember 21, 2009 -- Abramski transfers handgun via FFL to Alvarez.
Click to expand...

Tom Servo said:
If I were law enforcement or a judge, I'd call it a straw purchase given the first three parts of the timeline. However, once they decided to do the handover through an FFL...well, that really goes towards wanting to do the right thing. Some discretion certainly should have been exercised.
Click to expand...
Given the same time line, I get to a different conclusion than Tom. The two men lived in different states. Even if Alvarez wrote a check on the 15th, it's unlikely that Abramski received it on the 17th. Even if he did, he had not deposited it. Thus, the purchase was made using his own money (even though with the expectation of reimbursement).

To me, the "smell test" here is as I described in a previous post. If Abramski could have legally gone through EXACTLY the same steps to buy the gun and GIVE it to Alvarez, what possible difference could (and should) it make that Alvarez reimbursed him for the cost?

This is another example of the government working overtime to turn honest citizens into "criminals" over alleged technical violations of laws and regulations that the law enforcement agencies themselves don't even understand. And clearly law enforcement agencies DON'T understand the laws and regulations applicable here, since we have federal circuit courts disagreeing on what the law means. So the answer is not as patently obvious as we might wish for.

It's a shame lawmakers long ago stopped writing laws that just said what they meant in plain English. "Don't sell guns to bad guys" (perhaps with a definition of what "bad guy" means in the context of the law) would have been much simpler and easier to understand than all the gobbledigook that makes up the legal landscape underlying this case.
 
Last edited:
Did I miss somewhere in this discussion how the feds got wind of this in the first place? I get that they have violated a law ... but if no crime was committed with the gun and FFLs handled both the original purchase and the transfer, what red light went off at ATF or the FBI to bring this pretty obviously innocent act to the law's attention?
 
Aguila Blanca said:
...(even though with the expectation of reimbursement)....
Click to expand...
Legally that really does make a significant difference. The "straw purchase" is really about someone acting as the agent or proxy of someone else to buy a gun. Here Abramski (son) was acting as his father's agent, his father being the principal and actual purchaser. And Abramski (son) was merely advancing funds on the account of his principal.

Everything had been arranged ahead of time and an agent-principal relationship established.

bikerbill said:
Did I miss somewhere in this discussion how the feds got wind of this in the first place?...
Click to expand...
Discussed in the Fourth Circuit decision linked to in post 1 and by Spats McGee in post 29.
 
It's hard to argue that this doesn't run afoul of the ATFs current interpretation of the law but I think it's a good case because there's nothing about it that SHOULD be illegal.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Given the same time line, I get to a different conclusion than Tom. The two men lived in different states. Even if Alvarez wrote a check on the 15th, it's unlikely that Abramski received it on the 17th. Even if he did, he had not deposited it. Thus, the purchase was made using his own money (even though with the expectation of reimbursement).
Click to expand...
I'll admit to not having the foggiest clue how long it would have taken the check to get from VA to PA. With that said, I have a strong hunch that Abramski had, at the very least, received Alvarez's promise to pay him for the G19. If he had received the check, he would have received an order to pay (which is technically what a check is, if I remember my Negotiable Instruments class rightly). From a contract perspective, those both (promise and order) amount to consideration.

It is clear that the initial purchase was made with his own money. (Purchase = November 17. Check Deposit = November 20.) But it also appears that Alvarez and Abramski had entered into an agreement for Abramski to buy the gun for Alvarez. That's kind of the heart and soul of a straw purchase.
 
But it also appears that Alvarez and Abramski had entered into an agreement for Abramski to buy the gun for Alvarez. That's kind of the heart and soul of a straw purchase.
Click to expand...

It's just plain silly that such a thing would be illegal. Folks do the same exact thing with all kinds of other objects every single day.

For instance, I know where there's a '64 1/2 Mustang that I can get for $4000. I know that you want a '64 1/2 Mustang. I tell you I can get you the car for $6000. You agree. I buy the car and sell it to you.

The Mustang could be replaced with almost literally ANY object in the known universe and be perfectly legal... except a gun, when it becomes suddenly illegal.
 
Dose what happened break the letter of the law? It sure does, look right here (ink on paper)… Now, what was the spirit of the law?
The law is to stop Prohibited people from obtaining guns..That is the intent, that is so obvious to a rational person.
In my eyes, the only reason this was caught was because of the attempt to be above board. I think the ffl. transfer in its self, was the clincher.
Again, to me, this is not the intent.. The Agent that pushed this……..Well, who knows what his motives are...:(
 
motorhead0922 said:
I'd like to know that too. It seems to me that if Abramski hadn't done the second FFL transfer (and just handed over the G19), he wouldn't have gotten in any trouble at all.
Click to expand...

Oh I'd say he would have. Apparently the Uncle lived out of State., requiring an FFL transfer of a private sale, and a pistol to boot.

The problem appears to reside in the timing of the check suggesting/proving an intent or contract.
 
If Abramski could have legally gone through EXACTLY the same steps to buy the gun and GIVE it to Alvarez, what possible difference could (and should) it make that Alvarez reimbursed him for the cost?
Click to expand...
It really shouldn't.

Here's a scenario: I mention that I'm going by a gun shop today on my lunch break. Blanca says, "hey, they've got that Bustamatic 2000 in stock. Here's the money. Can you pick it up for me?" If I do so, I'm breaking the law. It doesn't matter that it's perfectly legal for him to own it.

However, let's say I just happen to be in the shop, and I see the BM2000. I think, "hey, Blanca wants one of those. I'll buy it for him." Since I'm buying it as a gift, I'm not breaking the law. Even if he reimburses me for it. Even if I sell it to him at a higher price than I paid.

The line is really blurry and arbitrarily drawn. I get why the statute was enacted, but like many gun-control laws, it's a disaster in practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top