Abramski v. United States - Illegal Straw Purchase?

[Skeeter Barnes]

Mr. Abramski is a former police officer. His elderly uncle wanted to obtain a firearm for self-defense. Mr. Abramski made the purchase at a local gun dealer in Virginia who offered discounts to former police officers. Mr. Abramski passed a federal background check at the gun store in Virginia and then brought the handgun to another gun store in Pennsylvania, where the gun was transferred to his uncle, who also passed a federal background check.

Neither Abramski nor his uncle was prohibited from possessing the firearm. Before making his purchase Abramski asked three federally-licensed dealers how he should go about obtaining a firearm for his uncle. All three agreed the sale was legal.

Nevertheless, because Abramski bought the gun from a federally-licensed dealer, he had to fill out an form stating that he was the “actual buyer” of the firearm. The ATF claimed that Abramski’s uncle was the “actual buyer” and Abramski had made a false statement in filling out the form. Abramski was eventually convicted of a felony.

Federal law does not prohibit one eligible person from buying a gun for another eligible person. It is perfectly legal to buy a gun for an eligible gunowner. The law only prohibits transfers to ineligible people. Neither Abramski nor his uncle was ineligible.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/deer_park/opinion/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-gun-case-backed-by-stockman/article_d40222ce-12f4-5666-8cb3-7813004663bd.html

Was this an illegal straw purchase? I can't say I have a problem with the guy buying his uncle a gun since they went through the background checks in both states.

[Jenoch]

1. The question I have is, how did the ATF find out that the gun was not a gift?

I really hope Mr. Abramski wins his case at USSC.

The ATF is wasting time prosecuting this case when there are criminals getting their girlfriends to make illegal straw purchases every day all over the country. Those are the kinds of straw purchases they should be prosecuting.

[oldhippie]

2. My guess is that ATF wanted to get Abramski for something .....

... that they couldn't prove, so they used this charge instead. I've seen that happen several times, and the courts let them get away with it until someone has the support and dollars to appeal.

The "are you the actual buyer?" is a pretty legally ambiguous question.

[Jenoch]

3. I wonder if the forms have changed over the years.

I own two guns that my older brother bought and I now own. The first was a Mossberg 500 and I paid him for it. The other gun he bought was a Ruger MkII .22 semi-auto pistol that was a gift from my father, so my father paid my brother for it. Both of these guns were purchased before the Brady Bill, so I don't know what the laws were back then.

[bobclark86]

9. Did he buy them for the sole purpose of selling them to you?

And are you ineligible to possess a firearm?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then yes, it is considered a straw purchase.

If EITHER answer is no, then it is not. No to the first means he bought it for himself and then sold it later on, and that's just a Face-to-Face transfer. A no to the second is a crime, just not a straw purchase crime.

[Jenoch]

10. He bought the Mossberg

with the intent of selling it to me. He bought the Ruger with the inten if selling it to our father who then gave it to me.

Both my father and were then and are now not ineligible to purchase or to own firearms.

My question is if form 4473 was different prior to the Brady Bill than it is now.

My brother was then and is now a licensed law enforcement officer.


So, what was the crime?

[oldhippie]

11. It seems the only change to the 4473 was ......

... to add the section on the results of the NICS check. And asks for a (optional) SSAN.

Revised Form 4473: The new regulations eliminate interim Brady’s "Brady form."
However, purchasers of firearms from FFLs are still required to complete a
revised Form 4473. The revised Form 4473 incorporates a new section for FFLs to
record information received from NICS. Additionally, it solicits, on an optional
basis, the social security number of the purchaser to help minimize the
misidentification of firearms purchasers.

http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=1625

[Jenoch]

12. So, did he break any laws in 1988, (Mossberg) and

1991, (Ruger Mk II)?

Nobody in my family would need to provide a SSN to help in misidentification since our surname is so unique. If I Goggle my last name, every single person listed is a descendant of my paternal grandfather or is married a descendant.

[oldhippie]

13. I dunno, I'm not a judge, nor a lawyer ....

... but if I were a juror I would vote to acquit in both cases.

[Jenoch]

14. Especially since the guy in this case transferred ownership with

a NICS check with an FFL dealer. As others have suggested, something else is going on with this prosecution.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Not that it will ever come out but...

...I'd like to know the fully burdened labor rates for the ATF officers working on this investigation and for the federal prosecutor(s) involved. How many tax dollars are used by hopeless bureaucracies like the ATF to pursue criminals whose only "victims" were ill conceived forms or systems?

To anyone who speaks English and can think at all, the only crime here is prosecutorial misconduct.

[Skeeter Barnes]

5. Thanks. Y'all know a lot more about this stuff than I do.

I was thinking if he was buying ten SIG P226 Navy pistols, for example, and immediately putting them up on Gunbroker, then that might be a problem if he's not an FFL. But he's just buying a gift for his uncle.

[ileus]

6. This is the kind of stuff that most regressive 2Aer's want to see

become much more common...they love making firearm owners into criminals.

[Eleanors38]

7. Well, sounds like he was the "actual buyer" to me.

There is something stinky about this, either a personal ax to grind, or some exotic precedent ATF wants.

[SoutherDem]

8. I was looking at purchasing a gun for my sister as a thank you gift

I got several answers as to how to legally do so and finally asked the ATF directly. I finally decided to just give her a Visa Gift Card.

Ultimately, it would have been legal, but I didn't want to take a chance, I have heard too many people who have gone through hell when it comes to issues with the 4473 once an issue occurs, even if it is an honest mistake.

This is why I am always cautious when an universal background check law is proposed, there always seems to be some language in them which is either too complicated or not detailed at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. IMHO...

...no part of the 4473 should be a primary crime. If it is determined that some aspect of the sale or subsequent use of firearms purchased was criminal, then the 4473 may be investigated for fraud, misrepresentation and other possible charges.

How screwed up is it to make a form into a felony? If there is otherwise no crime, misunderstanding a form should not create one. Felony my ass.

Gift card is the way to go; wise choice.

[aikoaiko]

16. The law v intent of law

Form 4473 doesn't ask if you intend to transfer to some who who is inelligble.

It only asks if you are the actual purchaser.

The law is intended to keep guns out of ineligible hands, but technically that's not what the form is asking.