Another gun blogger, Bluegrass Bruce, sent me a link to his blog which has a different point of view on the Abramski decision. I posted a comment about Abramski and Bluegrass Bruce had a different point of view which I am happy to post below. I am always willing and able to exchange views with people whose views differ from mine. Never got hurt by an opinion, right?
The Supreme Court’s Overkill
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.”
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.