Gun Owners of America: Good News … and Some Bad News

Eric Cantor
Eric Cantor
Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC –-( We start with yesterday’s bad news.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Abramski case was a lawless decree imposed by liberal judges who are way out of step with the American people — as nearly 75% of them agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and sell guns.

Gun Owners of America filed two amicus briefs in support of James Abramski, a former police officer who was eligible to own firearms and who bought a handgun for his elderly uncle who was also eligible to own firearms.

Both men passed a NICS background check, yet ATF claimed that Abramski lied on his Form 4473 when he claimed he was the “actual buyer” of the firearm.

This case involves one of the greatest instances of regulatory and prosecutorial abuse that we have ever seen.

The concept of a “straw purchase” is a “doctrine” created by ATF and the courts, rather than a “crime” enacted by Congress.

ATF argued that Abramski’s statement was “intended or likely to deceive” the Federal Firearms Licensee (“FFL”), even though he specifically asked two FFLs who both told him that he was following the law.

Click here to see the analysis of the Abramski decision by Gun Owner’s legal team.

The Abramski decision throws gun laws into great confusion. After all, even Sarah Brady has admitted — on pp. 223-224 of her book, A Good Fight (2002) — that SHE BOUGHT a hunting rifle for her son for Christmas one year.

She did exactly the same thing that James Abramski did, who has been viciously prosecuted by an anti-gun Obama administration!

Maybe the Obama Administration should now open a case against Sarah Brady, who is the founder of the Brady Campaign — an organization which is, ironically, championing yesterday’s Supreme Court decision.

They should prosecute her, too, but don’t hold your breath.

This just shows the importance of this year’s elections, when voters will have the opportunity to take the gavel out of Senator Harry Reid’s hands. The Senate Majority Leader has been busy packing the courts with far-left judges who don’t respect the Second Amendment, and now the “chickens are coming home to roost.”

Now that two anti-gun judges have been confirmed to the Supreme Court under Obama’s presidency, we have an anti-gun decision authored by Justice Kagan — who was supported by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), among others.

Click here to see if your Senator voted for Justice Elena Kagan — and let them know your displeasure if they voted to confirm her.

Two Things to be Happy About

First, the impact of the defeat of Eric Cantor on the anti-gun amnesty bill, which would have created over 8 million anti-gun voters.  We reported on that election last week, but didn't discuss its ramifications.

But there was every evidence that, once Cantor had passed his primary, he intended to bring up immigration amnesty in July and slam it through the House with Democratic votes.  The notion is that Cantor would have thumbed his nose at Republican conservatives, who would, in Cantor's mind, not have been able to do anything about his perfidy.

Now that is much less likely to happen.

Pundits of all political stripes spent election night last week throwing dirt on the grave of immigration amnesty, which had been the central issue in David Brat's defeat of Cantor.

National Review Online has not exactly been the biggest opponent of amnesty.  Yet, last Wednesday morning, NRO columnist Jonah Goldberg said that amnesty has had “a stake driven through its heart; it was drawn and quartered; it is dead; the earth was salted.”

Goldberg went on to observe that anti-amnesty Americans could not have sent a stronger message if “the Potomac turned to blood and frogs rained from the sky.”

Final victory for this year will happen only when Congress adjourns sine die.  But an attempt to ambush us appears to have been headed off at the pass.

Second thing that will make your day:  Also last week, Barack Obama was asked what was the biggest frustration of his administration.  He replied:  “My biggest frustration is that society hasn't been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do damage.”

Obama went on to claim that the difference between the U.S. and countries like Finland is that, in the U.S., “these guys can stack up a bunch of ammunition in their houses and that's sort of par for the course.”  [Of course, 1968 Gun Control Act regulated ammunition, but the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act deregulated it.]

This tells us a lot about Barack Obama, who has been open about his intent to implement universal background checks, but now has made it clear that he sees this as a stepping stone to regulating and banning ammunition as well.

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585
FAX: 703-321-8408

About:  Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington' – Ron Paul Visit: to Join.

  • 7 thoughts on “Gun Owners of America: Good News … and Some Bad News

    1. Sarah Brady bought a firearm for her son WITH HER OWN MONEY and then gifted the firearm to her son. PERFECTLY LEGAL. In fact, at that time, the 4473 actually asked the question of whether the firearm was for a gift. That question has since been deleted and replaced with what Hipshot Percussion posted

    2. This Abramski ruling, in my opinion, has been blown way out of proportion. He lied. Period. You can’t do that on the form. Otherwise it is still business as usual. Want to give the gun as a gift? Go right ahead. This from page four of form 4473

      Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer:
      For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner)
      . You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.
      Mr.Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr.Smith. Mr.Smith gives Mr.Jones the money for the
      firearm. Mr.Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS-FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a.
      The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give
      to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a.
      However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under
      18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x).
      Please note: EXCEPTION:
      If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer
      11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

      1. Hear, hear! Abramski lied. Plain and simple. The SCotUS got it right. What is also correct is the statement: “The concept of a “straw purchase” is a “doctrine” created by ATF and the courts, rather than a “crime” enacted by Congress.”

    3. The ATF claimed that Abramski was not the actual buyer because the uncle had given him a check with “Glock” written in the memo line, before Abramski had filled out the paperwork. If Abramski had bought the pistol with his own funds then sold it to the uncle, this in all probability would not have been an issue.
      It was a technical violation, not much different than Randy Weaver’s 1/2 inch too short shotgun barrel.

      Gifts are still allowed.
      From the link in the article:
      Analysis of the Abramski decision by Gun Owner’s legal team.

      “ATF’s definition of a “straw purchase” is arbitrary and unworkable, since it exempts “gifts” bought with the transferee’s money, but not purchases made with the alleged “actual buyer’s” money.”

    4. So, in summary, no one is allowed to buy a gift for someone else. “Political correctness” trumps logic and all those gifts that Santa Claus has distributed over the years must be returned and Santa, himself, must be thrown in the brig for the rest of his un-natural life.

    Leave a Comment 7 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *