Here’s how Guns Save Lives explains this important SCOTUS case:
Bruce Abramski, a former police officer and a resident of Virginia found himself in hot water with the ATF when he purchased a firearm for his uncle. Abramski argued that he only bought the gun because as a former police officer, he received a discount.
However, the ATF saw the purchase as a “straw purchase”. Traditionally, a straw purchase has been regarded as a purchase made by an individual who can legally own firearms on behalf of an individual who is not allowed to own firearms. However, in this case, both Abramski and his uncle were both perfectly legal to own a firearm.
Abramski even followed interstate gun transfer laws and sent the gun through a local FFL to his elderly uncle, who then received it through another FFL on his end.
The issue, apparently, is that Abramski received funds from his uncle ahead of time, specifically to purchase the firearm, so he is being charged.
Based on my limited understanding of the law (I am by no means a lawyer), had Abramski purchased the gun with his own money, and then immediately decided to sell the gun to his uncle for the same amount of money he purchased it for, he would not be in this situation. Screwed up law, right?
Anyway, depending on how the justices rule, we could be seeing implications in how straw purchases are defined, possible changes to the Form 4473 you fill out when you buy a gun, changes in ATF tactics in regards to operations such as Fast and Furious and a wide variety of other issues.
Source: http://gunssavelives.net/blog/the-supreme-court-is-hearing-a-major-gun-rights-case-this-week-did-you-know/
Another blog mentioned that Abramski consulted three gun stores before purchasing the weapon, and the only reason he got caught was because his home got raided by the cops, cops who didn’t have a warrant over something that was later cleared, and found an old check with the words “Glock” on the memo. Yeah, that was enough to get Abramski in hot water.
Google+
Gregory Smith