NRA, SCOTUS, and the Rule of "Close Enough for Government Work"

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/0...gistration-forms-defeating-the-whole-purpose/

You have to hand it to them, the National Rifle Association is tenacious in their goals, even to the point of absurdity. In their latest stab at circumventing any law they disagree with if it stands in the way of putting more guns into more hands, the group took the position that people should be able to lie on their gun background checks. Isn’t that kind of defeating the point of a background check?

Rather than focus on the larger implications of a “lie if you like” gun control policy, the NRA instead focuses on a single case, brought before the Supreme Court, in which a potential gun owner was arrested (and promptly convicted) for intentionally misrepresenting the information on his gun registration form. The gun was meant for his uncle, but the man, Bruce Abramski, wrote that it was for himself. As a former police officer, he wanted to get a discount on the purchase, which wouldn’t apply if it was for his uncle.



Encouraged by the NRA, Abramski took his case to the Supreme Court – because that’s what you’re allowed to do if your crime, no matter how obvious, is supported by the largest gun lobbying group in the country.



Distilled to its essence, Abramski’s argument was ludicrous. He claimed that he didn’t feel compelled to write the correct information on the form because his uncle probably would have passed the background check anyway. Using the unwritten law of “eh, close enough,” Abramski thought that this distinction made it okay. Obviously, the biggest flaw here is that when it comes to gun laws in the United States, deferring to the judgement of well-intentioned nephews isn’t the best way of regulating deadly weapons. As a result of his actions, Abramski’s uncle owned a gun that he was legally not cleared to own. That’s a crime.

Only in America folks.

 

[ZiprHead]

Not unusual that cops sometimes think they are above the law.

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/0...gistration-forms-defeating-the-whole-purpose/

You have to hand it to them, the National Rifle Association is tenacious in their goals, even to the point of absurdity. In their latest stab at circumventing any law they disagree with if it stands in the way of putting more guns into more hands, the group took the position that people should be able to lie on their gun background checks. Isn’t that kind of defeating the point of a background check?

Rather than focus on the larger implications of a “lie if you like” gun control policy, the NRA instead focuses on a single case, brought before the Supreme Court, in which a potential gun owner was arrested (and promptly convicted) for intentionally misrepresenting the information on his gun registration form. The gun was meant for his uncle, but the man, Bruce Abramski, wrote that it was for himself. As a former police officer, he wanted to get a discount on the purchase, which wouldn’t apply if it was for his uncle.

Encouraged by the NRA, Abramski took his case to the Supreme Court – because that’s what you’re allowed to do if your crime, no matter how obvious, is supported by the largest gun lobbying group in the country.

Distilled to its essence, Abramski’s argument was ludicrous. He claimed that he didn’t feel compelled to write the correct information on the form because his uncle probably would have passed the background check anyway. Using the unwritten law of “eh, close enough,” Abramski thought that this distinction made it okay. Obviously, the biggest flaw here is that when it comes to gun laws in the United States, deferring to the judgement of well-intentioned nephews isn’t the best way of regulating deadly weapons. As a result of his actions, Abramski’s uncle owned a gun that he was legally not cleared to own. That’s a crime.

Only in America folks.

It's a pity that the simpleminded hooters who write this stuff are immune to embarrassment - if they could feel shame it might prompt them to stick to their former profession(s) of selling shoes or life insurance. So then, we must suffer another OP with the hooter's scripted plot line...'the evil NRA is tenacious, they believe that people should lie on their background checks, Abramski's legal argument was ludicrious, he believed...yada, yada, yada'. Ho hum.

For those more interested in a legal reading beyond what is accessible to these blog writing gulled ninnies, here is what his (and the NRA's) defense actually noted:

Under the law (§922(a)(6) it is a crime to make a “false . . . statement” for a “fact material to the lawfulness of ” a firearms sale. It is true he made a false statement by claiming to be the buyer as defined on Form 4473, but that false statement was not "material to the lawfulness of the sale" since the truth that he was buying it for his uncle with his uncle's money would not have made the sale unlawful.

The government does not maintain that his uncle is an unlawful owner, or that Abramski violated any of the restrictions or prohibitions on gun transfer to certain types or categories of individuals. And there is nothing in the law that prohibits a person who can buy a gun to do so with the intent of transferring it to another person who is also eligible to possess a firearm, even at the other's request and funding.

Therefore, his conviction on this count was incorrect.

Your cite may not agree with Abramski's legal reasoning, but the only really absurd and vulgarized legal stances are in the cited article.

 

[Arctish]

So it's lawful to conclude a firearms sale with a falsified gun registration document?

Who knew?


Does that work for car sales, too?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Justice Kagan for the Court

On Abramski’s view, a person could easily bypass the scheme, purchasing a gun without ever leaving his home by dispatching to a gun store a hired deliveryman. Indeed, if Abramski were right, we see no reason why anyone (and certainly anyone with less-than-pure motives) would put himself through the [background check] procedures. Deliverymen, after all, are not so hard to come by.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

 

[maxparrish]

Justice Kagan for the Court

On Abramski’s view, a person could easily bypass the scheme, purchasing a gun without ever leaving his home by dispatching to a gun store a hired deliveryman. Indeed, if Abramski were right, we see no reason why anyone (and certainly anyone with less-than-pure motives) would put himself through the [background check] procedures. Deliverymen, after all, are not so hard to come by.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

But:

The Government charged Abramski with two federal crimes under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18
U. S. C. §§921–931: making a false statement “material tothe lawfulness of the sale,” in violation of §922(a)(6), and making a false statement “with respect to information required by [the Act] to be kept” by the dealer, in violation of §924(a)(1)(A). On both counts the Government interprets this criminal statute to punish conduct that its plain language simply does not reach. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s holding to the contrary.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_5468.pdf

My main point was that the cited OP source presented a vulgarized and mangled view of the legal dispute, and that the NRA sponsored defense had a far from absurd argument. However, unlike many SCOTUS cases I do not know how I would have voted in this dispute. I've skimmed both Kagin and Scalia's opinion and both make a compelling case...nuanced sufficiently to require to me to a make a close reading of the statute and an extended examination of prior case law before I could favor one over the other.

It seems the case illustrates the difference between prioritizing "intent" vs. "plain language". Textualists (Scalia) say the law is what it says, and the judge is not free to 'fill in meaning' where the law does not speak. Kagan, at least in this instance, argues for intent, that the language is ambiguous but context and intent tells us what it meant to say.

I support "original understanding" in the Robert Bork tradition, which is very close but not identical to Scalia's textualism. I believe that "original understanding" of a text's plain meaning is what the law is - naturally intent plays a role in discovering meaning in the words, but a secondary one to the plain text. If, after reading Kagan's full argument I were convinced that undisputed intent would clarify pivotal but ambiguous word meanings, I would be predisposed to agree with the majority.

On the other hand, if the words were not ambiguous and the law makers approved contradictory or opaque law (e.g. as some say in ACA's federal exchange provisions) my inclination is to either accept the law as plainly written, or declare in null and void and return it to Congress for clarification (something judges ought to do far more often).

As there are plenty here willing to argue the federal gun control side, I will happily provide balance by playing the devil's advocate.