Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation

Supreme Court Grants BATFE Broad Leeway on "Straw Purchase" Rules in Abramski v. United States

Friday, November 7, 2014

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Abramski v. United States. The ruling seemingly allows the government to require virtually any information it wants from a person buying a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, whether or not that information has any relationship to public safety or the policies of federal law. 

Abramski, a former policeman, was given money by his uncle to buy a gun on the uncle’s behalf. The apparent benefit to the uncle was that Abramski could obtain the gun at a lower price than the uncle himself could. 

Abramski bought the gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL), completed the required paperwork, and successfully underwent a background check. Because his uncle lived in another state, Abramski could not lawfully transfer the firearm directly to him. He therefore gave the firearm to an FFL in his uncle’s state of residence, and the uncle then received the firearm through that FFL. This meant Abramski’s uncle completed his own transfer paperwork and went through his own successful background check. The government did not allege that either party was prohibited or had any intention of thwarting prohibited person laws.  

The legal question in the case was whether Congress intended for this to be crime under two provisions of the federal Gun Control Act (GCA). The first prohibits knowingly falsifying information “material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a firearm by an FFL. The second prohibits knowingly falsifying information that an FFL is required to keep in records mandated by the GCA. The practical question in the case was whether the ends of the GCA – keeping firearms out of the hands of presumptively dangerous persons – was served by this prosecution or the government’s reading of the law. 

Under regulations created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to implement the GCA, a person who acquires a firearm from an FFL must complete a Form 4473 and answer a list of questions on the form. Some of the questions ask if the person falls into various categories of so-called prohibited persons. Such categories are set forth in the text of the GCA itself, and persons within them may not lawfully possess or receive a firearm because they are presumed to pose a heightened risk of dangerous or unlawful behavior. The form also asks, however, if the person is the “actual buyer” of the firearm. Nothing in the GCA specifically addresses or mandates this question.

The government claimed Abramski violated the law because he falsely indicated on the Form 4473 that he was “actual buyer” of the firearm, when he knew that the firearm was being bought by money provided by his uncle and for the ultimate receipt of his uncle. 

BATFE justifies the “actual buyer” question on the basis of preventing “straw purchases,” in which one person buys a firearm on behalf of another.  Yet straw purchasing laws are designed to keep people from acquiring firearms on behalf of criminals or dangerous persons.  As Abramski noted to the Court, prior to 1995, even BATFE did not consider one person obtaining a firearm on behalf of another as a material violation if the intended recipient was not prohibited. 

According to Justice Kagan’s opinion, however, the governmental interest at stake in the case is that a non-prohibited person might want to go through a straw purchaser if the non-prohibited person wants the gun for an unlawful purpose. This is because if the gun is ultimately recovered at a crime scene, it would be traced back to the straw purchaser, not to any subsequent “off the books” recipient.  By a five to four margin, the Supreme Court upheld Abramski’s conviction for violating both provisions of the GCA.

In this case, however, Ambraski’s uncle ultimately received the firearm through an FFL. In other words, his purchase was not off the books. He himself would be on record as receiving the firearm from the FFL in his state of residence.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a vigorous dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Scalia argued that “the government interprets [the GCA] to punish conduct that its plain language simply does not reach.” 

In refuting the majority’s argument that the GCA should be read to regulate beyond the initial purchaser interacting with the dealer, Scalia noted, “We interpret criminal statutes, like other statutes, in a manner consistent with ordinary English usage.” Scalia went on to explain, “In ordinary usage, a vender sells (or delivers, or transfers) an item of merchandise to the person who physically appears in his store… So if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store ‘sells’ the milk and eggs to me.”

Taking issue with the majority’s contention that the purposes of the GCA would be severely undermined were people able to buy guns on behalf of others, Scalia cited examples in which the federal government does not consider such an act a violation of the GCA. These include guns intended as gifts, guns intended for resale, and guns intended for raffle prizes. Scalia adds, “If the statute’s requirements were ‘rendered meaningless’ by treating Abramski rather than his uncle as the true purchaser, then they would be every bit as meaningless in the scenarios just described.”

Scalia’s dissent also pointed out that the BATFE has not always held the position that Abramski’s conduct was unlawful. Scalia notes that BATFE did not take its current position on the matter until the 1990s. He also pointed out the majority’s error in ignoring this fact, stating, “the fact that the agency charged with enforcing the Act read it, over a period of roughly 25 years, not to apply to the type of conduct at issue here is powerful evidence that interpreting the Act in that way is natural and reasonable and does not make its requirements ‘meaningless.’”

Regarding the matter of whether Abramski falsified information that is required to be kept in a dealer’s records, Scalia noted the question Abramski falsified is not information the GCA requires FFLs to keep. Scalia outlined the unsettling nature of the majority’s position, stating, “On the majority’s view, if the bureaucrats responsible for creating the Form 4473 decided to ask about the buyer’s favorite color, a false response would be a federal crime.”

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund participated in the case before the Supreme Court by filing a friend of the court brief. The brief emphasized the lack of statutory authority for the “actual buyer” question at issue in the case. It also argued that the government’s position in the case ignored the fact that Congress’ intent in enacting the GCA was to prevent the transfer to and possession of firearms by persons Congress had statutorily classified as “potentially irresponsible and dangerous.” On the other hand, the brief noted, “Congress did not intend to per se prohibit the purchase of a firearm by an individual on behalf of another.” The brief additionally pointed out BATFE’s own inconsistent interpretations of whether the purchase of a firearm by one party on behalf of another constitutes an illegal straw purchase when neither is a prohibited person.

IN THIS ARTICLE
Supreme Court BATFE
TRENDING NOW
H.R. 8 Markup: Liberal Democrats Markup Gun Control Legislation

News  

Friday, February 15, 2019

H.R. 8 Markup: Liberal Democrats Markup Gun Control Legislation

The Nancy Pelosi Speaker Era 2.0 continued on Wednesday, Feb. 13, with a markup of H.R 8, the “universal” background checks bill, in the House Judiciary Committee. Following on the heels of last week’s Judiciary Committee hearing, the same committee held a markup on ...

Washington: Magazine Ban & Firearm Seizure Bills Pass Committee

Friday, February 1, 2019

Washington: Magazine Ban & Firearm Seizure Bills Pass Committee

During the executive session on February 1st, the Washington state House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary voted to pass House Bill 1068 to ban many standard capacity ammunition magazines and House Bill 1225 for firearm ...

Illinois: Gun Tax Legislation Introduced

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Illinois: Gun Tax Legislation Introduced

On February 11th, legislation was introduced (HB 2331) in the Illinois House that would impose a new gun tax on all firearms and firearm components sold in Illinois. 

Washington: Senate Committee Hearing Rescheduled for Legislation to Expand Gun-Free Zones

Monday, February 11, 2019

Washington: Senate Committee Hearing Rescheduled for Legislation to Expand Gun-Free Zones

On February 14th, the Washington state Senate Committee on Law & Justice will be hearing Senate Bill 5434 that would expand arbitrary zones where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless while nothing is done to hinder ...

House to Move Forward with Ineffective Gun Control Proposals

News  

Friday, February 8, 2019

House to Move Forward with Ineffective Gun Control Proposals

On Wednesday, gun owners got to see what a Nancy Pelosi controlled Congress looks like as the House Judiciary Committee held its first gun control hearing in nearly a decade. Things went as one would ...

Mississippi: Pro-Gun Legislation Passes the House Unanimously and Now on to the Senate

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Mississippi: Pro-Gun Legislation Passes the House Unanimously and Now on to the Senate

On Wednesday, February 13th, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed House Bill 1581 on a bipartisan, unanimous vote, 113-0.  Now, the measure moves to the Senate where it is currently pending committee assignment and a hearing date

Indiana: Self-Defense Bill Passes House, On To Senate

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Indiana: Self-Defense Bill Passes House, On To Senate

On February 11th, the Indiana state House of Representatives voted 80-13 to pass House Bill 1284 to enhance protections afforded to law-abiding citizens acting in defense of themselves and others.  HB 1284 will now go to the ...

Congress to Take Up Gun Control Next Week

News  

Friday, February 1, 2019

Congress to Take Up Gun Control Next Week

On January 8, two bills were introduced in Congress to impose so-called "universal" background checks. The bills, H.R. 8 and S. 42, are being misleadingly described as simply requiring background checks on all sales of firearms, but this is ...

Kentucky: Senate Passes Constitutional Carry; On to the House

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Kentucky: Senate Passes Constitutional Carry; On to the House

Today, February 14th, the Kentucky state Senate voted 29-8 to pass Senate Bill 150.  SB 150 will now go to the state House of Representatives where it will be referred to the Judiciary Committee for ...

Oklahoma: House Overwhelmingly Passes Constitutional Carry Legislation

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Oklahoma: House Overwhelmingly Passes Constitutional Carry Legislation

Today, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Constitutional Carry Legislation, House Bill 2597, by a 70 to 30 vote.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.