continuing proofs America is wacko [2]

AP - S. Hananel wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.

The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.

Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount.

Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "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."

Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers — not purchasers — to run federal background checks on people buying guns.

Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.

The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration.

bungobaggins wrote:It's mostly just childish "I want this because you said I couldn't have it!"

Eldorion wrote:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/rolling_coal_conservatives_who_show_their_annoyance_with_liberals_obama.html

Mrs Figg wrote:but surely the gvt represents the people? in the UK the gvt is the symbolic heart of democracy, whether its true or not, the English dont have that paranoia that the gvt is out to get them, where does this paranoia come from? I dont understand it, why would you need to use guns against the gvt? its strange, I can understand that it you live in the Middle East, but not the US.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I can see more sense to it David in isolated communities- as you say the notion of taking care of your own problems is alive and well in Highland communities, as is helping your neighbour. But they dot need guns to do it with, as the chances of any trouble maker having a gun is slim to negligible

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Bungo- needing a gun to shot your own government doesn't strike me as very patriotic- what you do you call people who want to attack your government if your own people want to attack your government!

Saying I need a gun to protect myself from my own government always seems to me to make democracy rather pointless- surely the point of a democracy is that the people can choose and change their leaders without resorting to taking up arms and having coups?

I can see more sense to it David in isolated communities- as you say the notion of taking care of your own problems is alive and well in Highland communities, as is helping your neighbour. But they dot need guns to do it with, as the chances of any trouble maker having a gun is slim to negligible and you dont bring a gun to a fist fight unless you're a coward (guns are largely viewed here as a weapon of cowards, as are knives for that matter- bringing a weapon to a fight just says you aren't man enough to stand your ground on equal terms because you haven't got the guts too).