Supreme Court of the United States
Abramski v. United States
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12–1493. Argued January 22, 2014—Decided June 16, 2014
Petitioner Bruce Abramski offered to purchase a handgun for his uncle. The form that federal regulations required Abramski to fill out (Form 4473) asked whether he was the “actual transferee/buyer” of the gun, and clearly warned that a straw purchaser (namely, someone buying a gun on behalf of another) was not the actual buyer. Abramski falsely answered that he was the actual buyer. Abramski was convicted for knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a gun, 18 U. S. C. §922(a)(6), and for making a false statement “with respect to the in- formation required ... to be kept” in the gun dealer’s records, §924(a)(1)(A). The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
The Government charged Abramski with two federal crimes under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§921–931: making a false statement “material to the lawfulness of the sale,” in violation of §922(a)(6), and making a false statement “with respect to information required by [the Act] to be kept” by the dealer, in violation of §924(a)(1)(A).
Read the full (pdf) Supreme Court Decision
The defendant obviously brought a lot of extraneous baggage into this case, but there appears to have been no intent to circumvent the law governing the commercial sale of firearms. Except for the fraudulent use of employment identification in order to obtain a "trade" discount, the initial sale of the firearm at the FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) store had the attributes of a legal transaction.
It seems to me that the defense could have been successful had they not tried to generate fog by basing their argument on some ambiguous implications. Whether or not the purchaser in this case was acting as an agent could be argued either way under the circumstances.
Had the purchaser completed the process, paid for and taken possession of the firearm for one day—and then later conducted a private sale, there would have been no basis for this charge. As it stands, I see a camel's nose under the tent, and the ability of a person to legally transfer personal property, i.e. guns, without bureaucratic interference has suffered more erosion.
/fl