strong>Kentucky –(Ammoland.com)- On Monday June 16h 2014, the Supreme Court struck down a challenge from a former police officer named Bruce Abramski, who was convicted of “straw purchasing” after he bought a handgun on behalf of his uncle.
Despite the fact that Abramski’s uncle is an eligible gun owner and Abramski transferred the gun through a federally licensed firearms dealer, the Court upheld his conviction.
Abramski’s challenge said that it should be legal for one registered gun owner to purchase a gun on behalf of another eligible gun owner — especially if it is done through the proper channels. (Before taking control of the gun, Abramski’s uncle also passed all of the necessary background checks.)
Yet for the Supreme Court, that wasn’t enough. It ruled that Abramski should also have listed his Uncle’s name on the forms when he made the original purchase.
Tell me something — how does this kind of bureaucratic overkill prevent criminals from getting guns?
It doesn’t — and preventing crime is not the Court’s true intent.
In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:
“[Federal gun law] establishes an elaborate system to verify a would-be gun purchaser’s identity and check on his background. It also requires that the information so gathered go into a dealer’s permanent records… And no part of that scheme would work if the statute turned a blind eye to straw purchases.”
Funny word scheme..?
make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong.
“he schemed to bring about the collapse of the government”
Protecting this ‘scheme‘ is all that the liberals on the Court really care about.
Just like all the other liberals in Washington, their only goal is to control gun ownership any way they can.
About Bluegrass Bruce
Bluegrass Bruce is a hunter, political blogger, and UK basketball fan from Kentucky. His opinions on gun rights and politics are posted on “Bluegrass Bruce” and shared on websites and blogs across the United States. Visit: www.bluegrassbruce.blogspot.com