Reader Elliotte writes:
I wanted to pass along some more details that I’ve learned while reading the briefs in the Abramski case. I first heard about it on my local gun forum, www.mdshooters.com, (there’s a group that regularly posts briefs from and discusses 2A cases).
When I first read through the plaintiff brief and the amicus briefs I realized this case has the potential to have a much bigger impact than just clarifying the resale of guns to non-prohibited persons. Abramski’s lawyers and the amicus briefs are challenging the ATF’s regulation writing when it came up with the “straw purchase” questions on the 4473.
The GCA law that set up the background checks was only intended to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons. However, in 1995, the ATF rewrote the 4473 form to make it a crime to buy the gun for someone else, even if that other person was not a prohibited person. Later the form was revised to permit gifts. But, the GCA says nothing about buying a gun for another person, only about selling/transferring a gun to a prohibited person.
So by writing their own regulations, the ATF has gone beyond the letter and intent of the law passed by Congress. They have, in effect, written and have been enforcing their own laws. This has the potential to be a huge, pivotal case if the court addresses this aspect.
The ATF essentially wrote new law, inconsistent with what was passed by Congress and the briefs. Even quotes from Congresscritters from the floor debates at the time prove the intent of the law was only to limit the transfer of firearms to prohibited persons.
If the court strikes this part of the 4473 down because it goes beyond the law Congress passed, it could create precedent to open up every single bit of federal and state regulations to court challenges if that regulation extends beyond what the legislature specifically passed.
How’s active shooter security at my child’s school?
Non-existent. Sure, the schools keep some obscure back doors locked and they practice a lock down drill once a year. Other than that, no security guards, no resource officers, no police officers, pretty much no surveillance cameras, and the front doors are always open. Adding insult to injury our state criminalizes concealed carry licensees who carry concealed in schools which almost guarantees that there are no armed people in the schools … unless an off-duty law enforcement officer happens to be visiting and armed. (While our state criminalizes citizens with concealed carry licenses who carry concealed into schools, our state graciously “allows” law enforcement officers to carry concealed.)
So I have already instructed my oldest child to immediately vacate the building if she hears anything that could be gunfire. And yes, we have a predetermined rendezvous location far enough away from the school that I should be able reach her even if the police have blocked-off a large perimeter around the school. As for my youngest, she is too young to know what to do so she is, unfortunately, hung out to dry until she gets older.
Say it with me:
“The Governments (not constitutionally enumerated) Interest To Enforce Public Safety makes it OK”
You heard the ruling here first!
Roger Rabbit was framed.
He spent the last 30 in prison
Now he’s out, and he’s asking questions.
Or:
I’m Late! I’m Late! For a Very Important Date!
Or:
A man with a gun almost always gets respect. ALMOST always.
On a more serious note:
When he comes through my window at 2am, he won’t be carrying this. So I won’t either.
My understanding was that the SCOTUS was hearing it on the basis that wording of 4473 potentially violates Fifth Amendment protections. Could they hear the case based on more than one doctrine?
Hasn’t SCOTUS already ruled that someone could not be prosecuted for lying on a 4473 because that would violate their 5th Amendment rights?
Not so sure about the last sentence, Any regulation that exceeds the authorizing statute is subject to challenge. But just on its face it raises an important issue. I, for example, bought a pistol for my daughter Two issues arose–one, the 4473 as I as not the ultimate “purchaser,” and second the gun was not on the California roster. So I had it shipped to an FFL in Ohio where she lives, and had her do the 4473, avoiding both problems. The issue arises with some regularity in California, as LEOs are not restricted by the roster and can buy any gun they desire. That gun I turn my be lawfully transferred to a non-LEO in a FTF transaction (since an FFL does not take possession, the roster is not implicated). Several officers have been arrested and charges with illegal sales fort buying off roster guns and turning around and selling them to others–tidy little side business–that this case applies to.
I have a suspicion I won’t be seeing these on the shelves in California.
I saw where RF said blind people have a right to own guns so I thought what about me? I don’t even have a face.
Things go terribly wrong when H&K and Playtex team up for a joint promotion.
Piers is a Lamo!
I wonder if you can get a type G storm from a dealer. I don’t mind a manual safety but after 40 years of pushing down to disengage the safety I have no confidence that I would not reflexively engage a Beretta style safety. That is one of the reasons I went with a Springfield for compact carry 9 instead of the Storm.
The new masks of Payday 2 need some work.
I would love to believe them, but you only need about 5 seconds on their web site to see the articles they are sourcing (right hand column) to know exactly what they stand for. They bare a false flag worse than any other, they are here to teach us that its ok to own some guns,. but not others and to tell us that its ok to think like them. A “nudge” squad if you will.
I’m in college now, no children, but I can comment on my old high school. It had decent-ish security. The campus was large with 2,500-3,000 students, and many entrances and exits. The campus was comprised of several buildings all forming a sort of ring with the gaps between filled with fences. The fences could be scaled with relative ease, they were standard 4 foot chain link. The individual buildings were kept unlocked but all doors to the outside aside from the one leading to the office were locked during school hours. I’m not sure how much help that was, though, there were plenty of full height glass windows that could easily be broken and entered through.
For security personnel, there was a full time SRO who was armed with a Glock and a taser, and two (?) of the deans also had tasers. As far as I know, the plan was the fairly standard shelter in place, but all of the doors to individual classrooms were steel in steel frames and had locks. Interior walls were concrete block and there was a school intercom plus alarms for emergencies. I never felt particularly insecure. I graduated in 2011, prior to Sandy Hook, so the plans and systems may have changed since then.
On a glock, the striker always sits in the fully forward position until the triger is pulled. when the trigger is pulled the extension bar engages the striker, thus”cocking it.” Glock’s safe action trigger system is not cocked all of the time, the trigger system resembles a double action only trigger system.