Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by CallMaker, Jun 16, 2014.
In a way I understand the reasoning in this.
While I do not think this one meets the criteria of a "straw" purchase where the intent is to circumvent the law those on the Court think that it is indeed a violation of the law regardless of what the intent of the purchase is.
Abramski did make a false statement on his questionnaire which is part of the court challenge. He wrote yes that the gun was for him.
Kind of like stepping on your johnson............
What an azz...typical "I'm a former cop and I can do what I want" attitude and then the dumb clown gets caught trying to save said uncle a few bucks...even tho said uncle could have legally bought the gun himself. Then he presses the issue to challenge the law to save his own skin. Hope he does time...
Thanks for ruining it for the rest of us Abramski !!
The facts in Abramski are fairly simple.
Mr. Abramski is a former police officer who offered to buy a Glock 19 handgun (using his police discount) for his uncle for the sum of $400. Mr. Abramski went to a federally licensed firearms dealer to purchase the gun (the uncle had already given him a check) and filled out a questionnaire form that included the following question:
‘Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.’
Mr. Abramski answered ‘yes’ to this question and purchased the gun. He then gave it to his uncle and gave him a receipt. Ultimately this was discovered by federal authorities and Mr. Abramski was charged with giving a false statement. He subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to the charges reserving his right to challenge the law.