NRA it is ok to lie on gun registration form.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Sep 11, 2014.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    So it is ok to make a straw purchase? the NRA seems to not care who owns a gun. the sad part is the supreme court ruled 5-4 so 4 judges that it was ok to lie on the form too?

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/0...gistration-forms-defeating-the-whole-purpose/
    ou have to hand it to them, the National Rifle Association is tenacious in their goals, even to the point of absurdity. In their latest stab at circumventing any law they disagree with if it stands in the way of putting more guns into more hands, the group took the position that people should be able to lie on their gun background checks. Isn’t that kind of defeating the point of a background check?

    Rather than focus on the larger implications of a “lie if you like” gun control policy, the NRA instead focuses on a single case, brought before the Supreme Court, in which a potential gun owner was arrested (and promptly convicted) for intentionally misrepresenting the information on his gun registration form. The gun was meant for his uncle, but the man, Bruce Abramski, wrote that it was for himself. As a former police officer, he wanted to get a discount on the purchase, which wouldn’t apply if it was for his uncle.

    Encouraged by the NRA, Abramski took his case to the Supreme Court – because that’s what you’re allowed to do if your crime, no matter how obvious, is supported by the largest gun lobbying group in the country.

    Distilled to its essence, Abramski’s argument was ludicrous. He claimed that he didn’t feel compelled to write the correct information on the form because his uncle probably would have passed the background check anyway. Using the unwritten law of “eh, close enough,” Abramski thought that this distinction made it okay. Obviously, the biggest flaw here is that when it comes to gun laws in the United States, deferring to the judgement of well-intentioned nephews isn’t the best way of regulating deadly weapons. As a result of his actions, Abramski’s uncle owned a gun that he was legally not cleared to own. That’s a crime.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    cops do this all the time, buy low & sell high, the gun ends up bringing a pretty penny here in CA if its off roster. case in point, Glock 42 LEO price 399 sells in the classifieds for around 6-700 USED.

    plenty of other off roster guns sold by LEO's .
     
  3. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #3
    There has been a lot of debate about the nature of the 4473 and gifting of firearms.

    However, is this gifting?

    Bruce Abramski is legally allowed to buy firearms. His uncle Angel Alvarez, can also legally buy firearms, as far as we know.

    Abramski purchased a Glock 19 pistol from a dealer using his law enforcement discount to get a better price, then sold the gun to his uncle.

    Both transfers—from the Virginia FFL to Abramski, then from Abramski through another FFL to Alvarez in Pennsylvania—followed the law. It is perfectly legal for the private transfer of firearms in PA

    Meaning no law was broken.

    HOWEVER, it's pretty clear that Abramski bought the gun with the sole intent of transferring to a specific person. That's a straw purchase in my opinion.

    People have asked me many times if they could use my Military discount to get guns for cheap and my answer has always been "HELL NO". I want no part in straw purchases.

    I've sold many weapons privately for a variety of reasons, but never would I buy a gun for someone else.

    Just as an FYI, the 4473 is NOT equal to registration.
     
  4. lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #4
    They were both legally allowed to buy that firearm.

    The Government doesn't seem to care either, in 2010 over 13 thousand fugitives were caught lying on that same form only 62 of those cases ever went to court.

    How many guns did the Feds knowingly allow to be sold in the Fast and Furious straw purchase scandal?
     
  5. lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #5
    Technically that is a correct statement.

    However in a way it is. All the government needs is a serial number of the gun and they can track who, where, when it was purchased.

    The only problem they have that they are trying to fix is things get murky because of person to person sales.
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Presuming his uncle would have passed the background check I'm not actually that bothered. The gun registration process needs to allow guns that are transferred between people to be registered. Then this would be a non issue.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    A couple of points ...

    1. Could you please source your information?

    2. Were those fugitives denied the right to purchase the gun? It's possible that the government didn't consider the offense worth prosecuting and were satisfied simply in the denial of the purchase.
     
  8. lostngone, Sep 11, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014

    lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #8
    Do you have to register when you exercise any of you other Rights*? Why should I have to tell the Federal Government any time I want to buy or sell a gun, it isn't any of their business.


    * blah blah voter registration blah blah
     
  9. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #9
    the thing is is that the NRA is fine with lying and straw buying that's not a problem?
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Voting, organising a protest etc.
     
  11. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #11
    Because guns kill people
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    because this is the land of the free as long as you have all the permits to prove it :D

    ----------

    gun is just a tool.
     
  13. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #13
    There is a lot of debate about the nature of this case, and where it fits in terms of straw purchases.

    I'm sure if you asked the NRA do they support straw purchases, the answer would be no.

    But this matter gets more complex because it touches upon familial transfers, familial gifting and movement of arms between eligible family members with inheritance and transfers for legal reasons. That's murky and would/could result in what I regard as an attack on civil liberties.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    I bought guns for MY kids, guess they might be considered straw purchases since they were not specifically for me.
     
  15. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #15
    Made to kill
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    mine are defective, all they do is bust clays & evil zombie paper targets
     
  17. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #17
    Exactly. And that's a more accurate description of the NRA's position.

    Obviously a lot of this has to do with intent, but that is highly circumstantial.

    Is it someones intent to engage in illegality, or present a cool gift to a relative.

    Though, in this case, I do think the way the purchase was handled was a bit shady.
     
  18. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #18
    Yup, a very very very dangerous one that has very few uses (hunting and protection). Aside from those 2 uses, it's just a very very very dangerous toy.
     
  19. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #19
    Gun were not invented to bust clays and evil zombie paper targets

    They were invented with the purpose to kill
     
  20. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #20
    Wrong

    [​IMG]
     
  21. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #21
    Huh? Last time I checked, items used in sporting (footballs, basketballs, etc) are TOYS.
     
  22. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #22
    ...and Olympic Shooting...
     
  23. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #23
    Right, I said OTHER THAN hunting and protection, it's used as a toy. When you do something purely for enjoyment, and use an object in that context, it's a toy.
     
  24. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #24
    Isn't it great that lots of people like jkcerda have found other uses for them?
     
  25. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #25
    I probably dislike the NRA more than anyone here, but I'm genuinely confused by this article's quoting of "the NRA". From the article, here is every quote/mention of "the NRA" that it makes.

    "the National Rifle Association is tenacious in their goals, even to the point of absurdity."

    "the NRA instead focuses on a single case..."

    "Encouraged by the NRA..."

    "It’s harder to justify the NRA’s role in this."

    "The NRA makes no such distinction, instead choosing to pretend that this is an example of Obama and his gun-hating cronies trying to make it impossible for good, honest folks – especially those with lazy uncles – from getting their sweet, sweet .22 caliber nectar."

    Did I miss where a spokesperson or officer said or wrote something? Is that Bruce guy a spokesperson for the NRA? Did they fund his supreme court case?
     

Share This Page