USA-COURT/ARGENTINA
A man hails a taxi upon exiting the U.S. Supreme Court
building in Washington June 16, 2014. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday
declined to hear Argentina's appeal over its bid to avoid paying $1.33
billion to hedge fund creditors or risk a potential default.
(REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)
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.
0Awesome Comments!