Virginian Loses Supreme Court Case on "Straw Purchase"

On Monday, a divided Supreme Court ruled against Virginian Bruce James Abramski, Jr., in a case related to "straw purchases."  Yahoo News has the story here.

The background: Abramski, a retired police officer purchased a Glock pistol for his uncle from a gun shop in Collinsvile, Virginia, using a law enforcement discount. He then transferred it to an FFL in Pennsylvania so his uncle could take posession of the firearm.  The rub was Abramski stated he was the purchaser on the form 4473. He was arrested as a suspect in a bank robbery several days later but never charged, but he was charged with lying on the 4473. He challenged the conviction and the Supreme Court sided with the government.  Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote. In the past, Kennedy has sided with the majority in Heller and McDonald which up held an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Elana Kagan, writing for the Majority, said:

“Abramski’s reading would undermine — indeed, for all important purposes, would virtually repeal — the gun law’s core provision,” Kagan wrote. She added, “Putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw.”

The problem with this is that Abramski was not arguing that he should be able to buy a firearm for a criminal.  I guess the difference between what Abramski did and what my wife would do if she buys a firearm for me for Christmas is, she is buying it - I did not give her the money to do so as Abramski's uncle did, she just gives it to me as a present after she buys it.

Apparently, Kagan does not find "ambiguity” in the law a bad thing.

SCOTUS Says No to Drake

Probably the best case for a hearing on the issue of carrying firearms outside the home will not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The story is here. In a one line order, the Court declined to hear the case without further comment. For those not familiar with the case, it was brought by John Drake, who said he needed to carry a firearm because of his job restocking ATM machines. Other plaintiffs included a reserve sheriff's deputy, a civilian FBI employee and a victim of an interstate kidnapping, all of whom were initially denied permits. In New Jersey, permit applications have to be approved by local police and then a state Superior Court judge.

In a 2012 ruling upholding New Jersey's law, U.S. District Judge William Walls wrote that the alternative to the state's "justifiable need" requirement would be granting permits to carry a gun to anyone who felt "the subjective need based on nothing more than 'general fears' to go about their daily lives prepared to use deadly force. Judge Walls said the risks associated with a judicial error in discouraging regulation of firearms carried in public are too great"

The 3rd Circuit upheld Walls' ruling in a 2-1 decision. Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman decented saying in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home and "protects an inherent right to self-defense."

SCOTUS Not Interested in Three Gun Rights Cases

It appears the Supreme Court of the United States has no appetite for reopening the issue of the Second Amendment as it relates to carrying firearms outside the home. Lyle Denniston was the first to report it over on Scotus Blog this morning.

A Bitter notes on Shall Not Be Questioned, we should not be relying on the courts anyway. We need to make sure that we elect the right people on election day.

Supreme Court to Hear Case of Virginian Convicted of "Straw Purchase"

ABC News has the story here.  The defendant,  Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former police officer, purchased a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Va., in 2009 and transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa.  His uncle is legally able to own and purchase firearms.  Apparently, Abramski used his police discount so that his uncle could get it a little cheaper than he would have if he bought it himself in PA.

Abramski says he should not be considered a straw purchaser because his uncle is not a prohibited person.  The Feds say he lied on his 4473 because he said he was the "actual buyer."

You will recall that all the talk about so-called "universal" background checks back in April was really more "transfers" than purchases.  Manchin/Toomey/Schumer could have made you a felon for "transferring" a firearm to someone without first conducting a background check, including simply letting a friend try your firearm at the range.  Colorado's new "universal" background check does the same.  So, this could prove to be an important case.

This Should Be All The Proof You Need That This Election Is Important to Gun Owners

If gun owners needed proof that who wins the race for the White House is critical to our rights, the fact that yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could overturn an opinion rendered less than 10 years ago, should be all you need to convince you of what is at stake this year. Yesterday, the Court heard a challenge to its 2003 ruling that race may be considered as a factor when considering a candidate for admission to colleges and universities.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in 2003 which allowed universities to use race as a factor only to find a "critical mass of underrepresented minority students." What is different this time?  There is no Sandra Day O'Conner on the Court.  She was replaced by a more conservative justice who could well rule to overturn that opinion.

Think what could happen if President Obama is re-elected and in the next four years, one of the five justices that sided with the majority in Heller and McDonald is replaced by a more liberal justice who does not interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right.  There are a number of cases winding their way through the courts.  It is possible that one or more of these cases will reach the court in the next four years.

2012 and The Supreme Court

Sebastian over on Shall Not Be Questioned (formerly Snowflakes in Hell), shared this quote from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens regarding the Heller and McDonald decisions, from an article appearing in Time magazine:

I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong. Gun policy should be handled by legislatures and by states, not by federal judges appointed for life.

Sebastian writes that the Second Amendment will never really be safe until we stop hearing this type of thinking from left-leaning judges, and we get judges on the bench who are willing to uphold the Second Amendment.  I would add that, above all else, this should be what motivates every gun owner, even those who do not generally get involved in campaigns, to become active in next year's presidential campaign and work for the defeat of President Obama, making sure he does not have the opportunity to appoint one or more additional justices similar to Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan.

McDonald vs. Chicago at Supreme Court Today

Oral arguments are behing heard in the McDonald vs. Chicago gun ban case today at 11:00AM. VSSA joined our sister state associations in filing an amicus brief supporting McDonald last fall. You can get live updates at Noon and 3:00PM at NRANews.com.

The Wall Street Journal had this report earlier today.

More on Supreme Court Decision to Hear Chicago Case

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that they would hear a case dealing with the Chicago handgun ban. The case is McDonald vs. Chicago. The lawsuit was originally filed within hours after the high court's ruling in D.C. vs. Heller that overturned a ban on possessing handguns in the nation's capital.

The court had three cases to choose from on the Second Amendment, one dealing with New York (Maloney v. Rice) and two dealing with Chicago - the McDonald case where Alan Gura, the attorney that successfully argued the Heller case, and the NRA case. According to SCOTUS Blog:

Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592).

The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States such as New York. In short, the Supreme court could incorporate the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to applied to states.

For those not familiar with the meaning of "Incorporation," it is the technical word for making a Constitutional Amendment applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was passed, the Founders specifically rejected a proposal to incorporate the Amendments. Instead, the laws were only applicable to the federal government.

But starting in 1897, the high court has undergone a piecemeal process of incorporating various parts of the Bill of Rights. The case in question is asking the justices to extend the federally protected Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to the states. Something has yet to do.

It should be noted that VSSA joined our sister state associations in filing a brief in support of NRA vs. Chicago. While that case is not the one being heard, VSSA will be joining the other state associations in support of McDonald. We will keep you posted on the latest information about VSSA's role in the case.

Hat tip to Sebastian.

Sotomayor Dodges Questions About Gun Rights

CBS News' Political Hot Sheet has this piece this morning:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor refused on Wednesday to elaborate on her views about firearms regulations and the Second Amendment, saying she would "make no prejudgments" about future firearms-related cases.

Senator Tom Coburn pressed her as to whether she believes Americans have a fundamental right to self defense. Sotomayor failed to respond instead going back to New York Criminal law which she "had experienced" and talked about what would be legal in New York under certain circumstances.

We should not be surprised that she is not answering questions that may come before the court but I do think her previous writings give us an idea of what she might do if confirmed to the court. And the fact that the Brady Campaign on Tuesday endorsed her speaks loudly about why gun owners should be concerned about Sotomayor's ascension to the High Court.

Chicago Gun Ban Case Moves to SCOTUS

This from yesterday's Wall Street Journal PM Roundup:

NRA Challenges 7th Circuit Opinion: Wow, that was fast. The National Rifle Association didn’t sit around and nurse its wounds for long, after the Seventh Circuit on Tuesday declined to shoot down gun-control regulations in and around Chicago. According to this release, the NRA filed a petition for cert on Wednesday. Said Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist: “The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land.” Scotusblog

The opinion in this case came very quickly after oral arguments according to Steve Halbrook during an interview on NRANews.com earlier this week. That is good because it gets this case moving that much faster to the Supreme Court.