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. Isnt 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 wouldnt apply if it was for his uncle. Encouraged by the NRA, Abramski took his case to the Supreme Court because thats what youre 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, Abramskis argument was ludicrous. He claimed that he didnt 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 isnt the best way of regulating deadly weapons. As a result of his actions, Abramskis uncle owned a gun that he was legally not cleared to own. Thats a crime.