Gun Rights Activists Not Pleased With Recent Supreme Court Decision
Bruce Abramski, a former police offer, purchased a gun in Virgina in 2009; he argues that, at the time, he told the licensed dealer that he was the true purchaser of the gun. On his required Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms form, he checked the appropriate box to indicate that he was the “actual buyer,” of the weapon. Abramski claims he told the dealer that he intended to resell the item to his uncle in Pennsylvania; the dealer then instructed Abramski to still check the actual buyer box on the ATF form and that, as long as the deal was processed through a licensed dealer, it would be of no issue.
However, five years later, Abramski found himself in court over the issue. According to an article recently completed by CNN Justice, the case draws attention to a debate on whether misstatements on purchasing guns in an otherwise lawful sale of a firearm should be punishable. The Obama Administration holds firm that purchases made from licensed dealers must follow the letter of the law to ensure accurate record keeping, as to make the process of tracing sold firearms as easy as possible. However, gun rights activists believe that the case is treating Abramski as if he were reselling the firearm to a criminal or smuggler; the fact that the gun was resold to a relative should excuse the matter.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has gone easy on the matter of gun control, in the name of self-protection in the home of the individual. However, when they heard Abramski’s case, they decided to rule on the stricter side of the matter. In a five to four ruling, the highest court in the nation settled on a need for the actual buyer/transferee to disclose any intent to resell at the time of purchase, specifically on the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms form.
