Abramski v. United States

Last updated

Abramski v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 22, 2014
Decided June 16, 2014
Full case nameBruce James Abramski, Jr., Petitioner v. United States
Docket no. 12-1493
Citations573 U.S. 169 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 2259; 189 L. Ed. 2d 262
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Abramski, 778 F. Supp. 2d 678 (W.D. Va. 2011); affirmed, 706 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 571 U.S. 951(2013).
Holding
It is a federal crime to act as a straw buyer of a gun, even when the true buyer can buy the gun lawfully.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKagan, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
DissentScalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito
Laws applied
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6); 924(a)(1)(A)

Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that making arrangements for a straw purchase of a gun is in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and is different from re-selling or gifting a previously purchased gun. In the Abramski case, a former police officer from Virginia took advantage of a local discount to buy a gun for his uncle and later transferred it to Pennsylvania—the uncle's residence—using the appropriate federal procedure. During the purchase, Abramski falsely declared that he was purchasing the gun for himself.

Contents

Initially, Abramski's defense was that (a) the misrepresentation was not material since his uncle was legally capable of making the purchase himself, and (b) since the answer to the question of whether he was purchasing the gun for himself was not required to be kept on the firearms dealer's record, no law was violated. However, when the case came before the Supreme Court, Abramski modified his defense and claimed that the misrepresentation was not material because the law only cares about the person buying the gun from the dealer, not the final receiver of the gun. The Court disagreed with this interpretation and held that the law cared about the final receiver, which is properly considered the person buying the gun. Such straw arrangements, the Court held, are different from allowed transfers where a person buys a gun for himself and later decides to sell it. Accordingly, the Court found that the misrepresentation was material. Additionally, the Court found that the answer was required to be kept on the dealer's record. The Court thus held that the purchase violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), [1] which makes it unlawful to falsify facts "material to the lawfulness of the sale," and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), [2] which prohibits misrepresentation with respect to information which a dealer is required to maintain on record.[ citation needed ] In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the declaration about the ultimate recipient of the gun was not material to the sale, and that it is not included in the information that the dealer is required to keep on the records. After the ruling, proponents of gun control stated that the Court's decision will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, while opponents of gun control stated that the ruling is a "horrible injustice". [3]

Background

Statutory background

The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulates the sale and transfer of guns. Section 922(a)(6) of the act makes it unlawful for any person acquiring a gun from a gun dealer to "knowingly ... make any false or fictitious ... written statement ... likely to deceive" the dealer, "with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale." [1] Section 924(a)(1)(A) of the same act, makes it unlawful and provides a penalty for anyone who "knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a firearms dealer under this chapter." [2] These provisions of the Act only apply to purchasers in the "primary market," that is purchasers buying guns from gun dealers. The provisions do not apply to the "secondary market," that is second hand guns sold or gifted by a private party. [4]

Factual background

Bruce Abramski, a former Roanoke, Virginia, police officer, [5] [6] offered to buy his uncle, Angel "Danny" Alvarez, a resident of Pennsylvania, a Glock 19 handgun at a police discount. [5] Agreeing, Alvarez sent Abramski a check, for $400, which stated "Glock 19 handgun" in the memo line. [5] [7] Abramski proceeded to purchase the gun, and filled the required ATF Form 4473. Question 11.a. on the form asks: "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." Abramski's answer to this question was yes. [8] After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, Abramski contacted a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on Alvarez [9] and then proceeded to transfer the gun to Alvarez through the FFL. [9] Completing the transaction, Abramski deposited the check and received a receipt from Alvarez. Later, Abramski was suspected of committing a bank robbery, [6] and his house was searched by Federal agents who found the receipt. [5]

Procedural history

After being indicted by a grand jury, Abramski moved to dismiss the indictment. Abramski claimed that: (1), his misrepresentation on Question 11.a. was not "material to the lawfulness of the sale," under § 922(a)(6), since Alvarez was able to lawfully purchase the gun; and (2), since the answer to Question 11.a. is not "required ... to be kept in the records" of the gun dealer, the false statement is not in violation of §924(a)(1)(A).[ citation needed ] The District Court denied both motions, [10] and Abramski entered a conditional guilty plea, where he reserved the right to challenge the sentence. [5] Abramski was then sentenced to five years of probation on every count.[ citation needed ] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's conviction. [11] [8]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the Fifth Circuit agreed with Abramski's claim that falsifying the answer to Question 11.a is not considered material, if the true-buyer can legally buy and possess the gun. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split between the circuit courts, even though Abramski's defense had changed, and he now claimed that the answer to Question 11.a is never material. [12] Various parties filed amicus briefs supporting either side. Parties supporting Abramski included the National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund, [9] and West Virginia and 25 other states, while others, like the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Hawaii and 8 other states (plus the District of Columbia), filed amicus briefs supporting Abramski's conviction. [13] [14] [15]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Elena Kagan, author of the majority opinion Kagan 10-1-2010.jpg
Justice Elena Kagan, author of the majority opinion

The Court held that despite not mentioning the words "straw buyers", the federal gun law that regulates transactions with "persons" or "transferees" considers the "persons" or "transferees" to be the ones getting the gun at the end of the day, not the straw persons completing the transaction on their behalf. [16] Failure to interpret the law in such way, the Court held, would undermine the purpose of the law, which is to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. "Deliverymen, after all, are not so hard to come by." [17] The majority found Abramski's theory, that the federal law only cares about the person that is buying the gun and not the final buyer not to be true. The Court's majority opinion, written by Justice Kagan, held that if you interpret the terms "person" and "transferee," to mean "the man at the counter", you would undermine the purpose of the statutes, which is to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. [18] The Court therefore preferred to interpret the terms "person," and "transferee," to mean "the man getting, and always meant to get, the firearm". [18]

The Court further stated that although congress allowed the resale and gifting of a gun by an individual, without requiring form or background checks, that is not proof that congress did not care about straw buyers. "Yes, Congress decided to regulate dealers' sales, while leaving the secondary market for guns largely untouched ... And yes, that choice (like pretty much everything Congress does) was surely a result of compromise. But no, straw arrangements are not a part of the secondary market, separate and apart from the dealer's sale." [18] The Court also rejected Abramski's claim that since Alvarez was able to buy the gun legally on his own the misrepresentation is not material, stating: "Abramski's false statement was material because had he revealed that he was purchasing the gun on Alvarez's behalf, the sale could not have proceeded under the law—even though Alvarez turned out to be an eligible gun owner. The sale, as an initial matter, would not have complied with §922(c)'s restrictions on absentee purchases." [19] The court held that Abramski's case is analogous to a situation where a person that can buy a gun legally buys a gun under an alias. Such misrepresentation is material regardless of the fact that the buyer may purchase a gun legally, and the theory of "no harm, no foul" should not apply. [20] Finally, the Court rejected Abramski's claim that the misrepresentation is not in violation of §924, because it is not part of what the dealer is statutorily required to maintain on his record. The Court held that §924 requires the dealer to maintain information "required by this chapter", and that ATF Form 4473 is required by this chapter. [21]

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Fourth Circuit against Abramski. [22]

Dissent

Dissenting, Justice Scalia would have held that although Abramski made a false statement by claiming that he was the buyer/transferee, since Alvarez was lawfully able to buy the gun, the statement is not "with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale," which is the requirement in §922(a)(6). [1] Additionally, the dissent criticized the government's use of the "agency law" principle to determine that Abramski was a third party's common-law agent for Alvarez. Instead, the dissent believed that common English should be used to interpret statutes, and therefore, under the statute, Abramski was the "person" buying the gun, not Alvarez. [23] Furthermore, the dissent did not think that the statute is "rendered meaningless" simply because one can buy a gun on behalf of another, just like it is not rendered meaningless when one gifts a gun. The dissent also wondered why the majority wouldn't agree that this is yet another loophole to a statute that has so many loopholes, and argued that perhaps it was Congress' intent to only limit the actual person at the counter. The dissent also stated that even if the majority had the proper interpretation of the statute, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. [24] Regarding the Section 924 charges, the dissent explained that the statute clearly lists what the dealer is required to maintain on record, and that the answer to the question of whether he is the actual buyer is not on the list. The dissent stated that the majority's interpretation ultimately carried the text too far. "[I]f the bureaucrats responsible for creating Form 4473 decided to ask about the buyer's favorite color, a false response would be a federal crime." [25] Justice Scalia concluded with the statement:

The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it—especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused. I respectfully dissent. [26]

Responses and analysis

Although not considered a "ground breaking rule" by some law reviewers, [8] the case received responses from both proponents and opponents of gun control. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which was the only gun prevention group to file an amicus brief [13] [14] hailed the Court's decision as a victory over the "corporate gun lobby." Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stated that the decision "will save lives by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people," and that "the Supreme Court rejected efforts by the corporate gun lobby to undermine federal gun laws, reaffirming that sensible laws can have a big impact while being consistent with the Second Amendment." [27] [28] Adam Winkler, writing for New Republic, also supported the ruling, stating that it is a "relief to law enforcement." [29] However, others, like the National Rifle Association (NRA), criticized the ruling, stating that it "seemingly allows the government to require virtually any information it wants from a person buying a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, whether or not that information has any relationship to public safety or the policies of federal law." [9] John Lott, a gun rights advocate, criticized the Court's statement that collecting this "information helps to fight serious crime," [17] claiming that registration doesn't help solve crimes, since registered guns are rarely left at the scene. He noted, for example, that Hawaii's requirement to register guns hasn't solved a single crime in 50 years, though Lott cited no evidence to support his claim. According to Lott, the Court "confirmed a horrible injustice, with no understanding of how gun tracing works, and without producing any increased safety for Americans." [3] A Harvard Law Review case note contended that, as a matter of law, the word "person" was properly interpreted by the majority, thus avoiding "gutting key provisions of the statute," and argued, against the dissent, that the majority's interpretation is also consistent with common English. [30] However, the case note argued that a narrower reading of the second count was more appropriate, because the statute explicitly requires the name age and residence, and not anything else. Thus, the law review concluded, the Supreme Court established an unnecessary precedent. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act</span> Mandate for background checks on firearm purchasers in the U.S.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, often referred to as the Brady Act, the Brady Bill or the Brady Handgun Bill, is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States. It also imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases until the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was implemented in 1998. Introduced by U.S. representative Chuck Schumer of New York, the Brady Act was a landmark legislative enactment during the Clinton administration. The act was appended to the end of Section 922 of title 18, United States Code. The intention of the act was to prevent persons with previous serious convictions from purchasing firearms.

A straw purchase or nominee purchase is any purchase wherein an agent agrees to acquire a good or service for someone who is often unable or unwilling to purchase the good or service themselves, and the agent transfers the goods or services to that person after purchasing them. In general, straw purchases are legal except in cases where the ultimate receiver of goods or services uses those goods or services in the commission of a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser, or if the ultimate possessor is not legally able to purchase the goods or services.

Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it illegal to possess a firearm for individuals previously "convicted in any court" of crimes for which they could have been sentenced to more than one year in prison. The Court ruled, in a five to three decision, that "any court" does not include those in foreign countries. This decision resolved a circuit split on the issue, and reversed the lower ruling of the Third Circuit that the law did apply to foreign convictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Firearm Owners Protection Act</span> 1986 United States federal gun control law

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Form 4473</span> Form filled out when purchasing a firearm in the U.S.

A Firearms Transaction Record, or ATF Form 4473, is a seven-page form prescribed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) required to be completed when a person proposes to purchase a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder, such as a gun dealer.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Instant Criminal Background Check System</span> US system for determining if prospective firearms or explosives buyers are eligible to buy

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a background check system in the United States created by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 to prevent firearm sales to people prohibited under the Act. The system was launched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1998. Under the system, firearm dealers, manufacturers or importers who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL) are required to undertake a NICS background check on prospective buyers before transferring a firearm. The NICS is not intended to be a gun registry, but is a list of persons prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. By law, upon successfully passing the background check, the buyer's details are to be discarded and a record on NICS of the firearm purchase is not to be made. However as an FFL holder, the seller is required to keep a record of the transaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990</span> United States law limiting firearms near schools

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is an act of the U.S. Congress prohibiting any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(26). The law applies to public, private, and parochial elementary schools and high schools, and to non-private property within 1,000 feet (300 m) of them. It provides that the states and their political subdivisions may issue licenses that exempt the licensed individuals from the prohibition.

Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court interpreted a frequently used section of the federal criminal code. At the time of the decision, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) imposed a mandatory, consecutive five-year prison term on anyone who "during and in relation to any... drug trafficking crime... uses a firearm." The lower court had sustained the defendants' convictions, defining "use" in such a way as to mean little more than mere possession. The Supreme Court ruled instead that "use" means "active employment" of a firearm, and sent the cases back to the lower court for further proceedings. As a result of the Court's decision in Bailey, Congress amended the statute to expressly include possession of a firearm as requiring the additional five-year prison term.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that felony driving while intoxicated is not a "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Florida</span>

Gun laws in Florida regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Florida in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Wisconsin</span>

Gun laws in Wisconsin regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Delaware</span>

Gun laws in Delaware regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Delaware.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Michigan</span>

Gun laws in Michigan regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Michigan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Minnesota</span>

Gun laws in Minnesota regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Minnesota in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in New Jersey</span>

Gun laws in New Jersey regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of New Jersey. New Jersey's firearms laws are among the most restrictive in the country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Pennsylvania</span>

Gun laws in Pennsylvania regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the United States.

The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013, commonly known as the NY SAFE Act, is a gun control law in the state of New York. The law was passed by the New York State Legislature and was signed into law by Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo in January 2013. The legislation was written in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and the Webster, New York, shooting. Cuomo described the law as the toughest gun control law in the United States.

References

  1. 1 2 3 18 U.S.C.   § 922(a)(6) .
  2. 1 2 18 U.S.C.   § 924(a)(1)(A) .
  3. 1 2 John R. Lott, What the Supreme Court still doesn't understand about guns , Fox News (June 25, 2014) (Archive)
  4. ↑ Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169, 186 (2014).
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 What? Straw Purchase a Gun? Abramski v. US , Daily Kos (January 6, 2014) (Archive)
  6. 1 2 Abramski v. United States , Oyez (June 16, 2014)
  7. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 175.
  8. 1 2 3 Donald Scarinci, Abramski v. United States: Supreme Court Rules Against Straw Purchaser in Gun Case Archived 2016-03-05 at the Wayback Machine , Constitutional Law Reporter (August 7, 2014)
  9. 1 2 3 4 Supreme Court Grants BATFE Broad Leeway on "Straw Purchase" Rules in Abramski v. United States , NRA Institute for Legislative Action (November 7, 2014) (Archive
  10. ↑ United States v. Abramski, 778F. Supp. 2d678 ( W.D. Va. 2011).
  11. ↑ United States v. Abramski, 706F.3d307 ( 4th Cir. 2013).
  12. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 176-77.
  13. 1 2 Brief of The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence , American Bar Association (last visited April 21, 2016)
  14. 1 2 Abramski v. United States Archived 2016-03-25 at the Wayback Machine , Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence (last visited April 21, 2016)
  15. ↑ "Hawaii amicus brief" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 11, 2023.
  16. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 179.
  17. 1 2 Abramski, 573 U.S. at 182.
  18. 1 2 3 Abramski, 573 U.S. at 183.
  19. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 189.
  20. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 190.
  21. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 191-92.
  22. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 193
  23. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 197-97 (Scalia, J., dissenting.)
  24. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 203-04 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  25. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 206(Scalia, J., dissenting).
  26. ↑ Abramski, 573 U.S. at 207 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  27. ↑ Benjamin Goad, Supreme Court rules that 'straw' purchases of guns are illegal , The Hill, (June 16, 2014)(Archive)
  28. ↑ Jennifer Fuson, U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Law Prohibiting "Straw Purchasing" of Guns , Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence (June 16, 2014)(Archive)
  29. ↑ Adam Winkler, Maybe the Supreme Court Isn't as Pro-Gun as We Thought , New Republic (June 16, 2014) (Archive)
  30. 1 2 Abramski v. United States , Harvard Law Review (Nov 10, 2014)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.