The Supreme Court’s Overkill ‘Scheme’

By Bluegrass Bruce

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s Overkill ‘Scheme'
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

strong>Kentucky –( 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..?

SCHEME: verb
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:

  • 5 thoughts on “The Supreme Court’s Overkill ‘Scheme’

    1. How about the issue that the cop willfully frauded the store owner out of profits. If the store owner wanted to offer the discount to everyone they could have simply done so. The deal was for LEOs only the cop willingly bought the weapon KNOWING that straw purchase was illegal in PA AND that the discount would not be valid for the family member. This is who polices our streets??? Shouldn’t law enforcement be held to a higher standard? I can tell you in my years with drug interdiction we would NEVER have played that game. Not only would we not do it because the deal wasn’t worth taking the risk but because our moral compasses wouldn’t allow us to be even assumed to be undermining the society. Sure I am sure that there is “authoritarian abuse” in every department (free coffee and free lunches etc..)as is glamorized by shows like “The Shield” etc but lets face it if the “leaders” in our community can’t be held to the highest standard then how can we expect the society at large to act in accordance. The big 3 auto makers specifically allow employees discounts to be used to buy vehicles for family members (actually the family members use the employee discount not buy then sell as this case illustrates) it is their INTENT to offer the discount to family but the gun shop specifically expected only LEOs to benefit. I am not saying this is in any way a gun conversation it is a fraud situation and with it he gets what he deserves. Doc

    2. I just ‘gave’ a Winchester .357 lever gun to my niece for her high school graduation. I think what I am trying to say, is, “screw you SCOTUS”

    3. This is the typical outcome of poorly written laws that, on the surface, have the good intentions of keeping prohibited persons from acquiring firearms but in practice entrap law abiding citizens. Nowhere in any of the Court documents is the criminal intent of Mr. Abramski noted. Had he known that what he was doing was going to be interpreted as atechnical violation of a law then he most certainly would have chosen another means to provide a firearm to his father, bear in mind that neither were prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm and both had already passed a NICS background check. Now some will argue that intent is not needed because the “letter of the law” clearly prohibits the purchase of a handgun for the expressed purpose of selling it to another. Ok, if that’s your position does the DC magazine capacity law clearly state that possession of a magazine with a capacity of 30 rounds is a felony? yes it does, what it does not say is that there is an exception for journalists, nor does it say that police can unilaterally waive the ban as was claimed in David Gregory’s case. The point is that many firearms laws are so poorly written, so broad in context and so easily abused by overzealous prosecutors that a gunowner is never quite sure whether he is in compliance with the law or is unwittingly a felon.

    4. At this point in America’s evolution the political ruling class fears ‘We the people’. The political elite look upon the ‘governed’ like we’re the peasants getting ready to storm Frankenstein’s castle.

    5. Government’s only concern, all branches, all agencies, is in protecting government. Nothing else matters. Gun crime was relatively low in the fifties and sixties. Some nutcase shoots the president, and like magic the unconstitutional GCA68 appeared, and upheld three years later by the most twisted, insane, manufactured decision I’ve ever seen from SCOTUS. (It’s interesting to note that the 4 and 5 deaths per 100k rose almost immediately after passage of that law to 8-10, where it stayed the next 25 years until States started restoring the 2A). The Brady Bill was what was left of a package of gun control resulting from the Reagan/Brady shooting. Shortly after Obamacare was passed, after a spate of vandalism to nazicrat offices, Gabby Giffords (who voted for Obamacare) was shot in the head, along with a federal judge and several other people. Not knowing it was just a random nutjob, thinking it was an enraged citizen exacting deserved payback for Giffords’ disobedience, Congress fell all over themselves in a panicked flurry of activity to table numerous proposals strengthening protection for THEM – not us.

      Make no mistake, the government does NOT want us stronger than them, and doesn’t want felons to get payback, militia to defy them, the whole government will drop the hammer on ANY threat it sees to itself. SCOTUS? They know what side of the bread their butter’s on.

    Leave a Comment 5 Comments

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