Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation

Supreme Court Grants BATFE Broad Leeway on "Straw Purchase" Rules in Abramski v. United States

Friday, November 7, 2014

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Abramski v. United States. The ruling 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. 

Abramski, a former policeman, was given money by his uncle to buy a gun on the uncle’s behalf. The apparent benefit to the uncle was that Abramski could obtain the gun at a lower price than the uncle himself could. 

Abramski bought the gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL), completed the required paperwork, and successfully underwent a background check. Because his uncle lived in another state, Abramski could not lawfully transfer the firearm directly to him. He therefore gave the firearm to an FFL in his uncle’s state of residence, and the uncle then received the firearm through that FFL. This meant Abramski’s uncle completed his own transfer paperwork and went through his own successful background check. The government did not allege that either party was prohibited or had any intention of thwarting prohibited person laws.  

The legal question in the case was whether Congress intended for this to be crime under two provisions of the federal Gun Control Act (GCA). The first prohibits knowingly falsifying information “material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a firearm by an FFL. The second prohibits knowingly falsifying information that an FFL is required to keep in records mandated by the GCA. The practical question in the case was whether the ends of the GCA – keeping firearms out of the hands of presumptively dangerous persons – was served by this prosecution or the government’s reading of the law. 

Under regulations created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to implement the GCA, a person who acquires a firearm from an FFL must complete a Form 4473 and answer a list of questions on the form. Some of the questions ask if the person falls into various categories of so-called prohibited persons. Such categories are set forth in the text of the GCA itself, and persons within them may not lawfully possess or receive a firearm because they are presumed to pose a heightened risk of dangerous or unlawful behavior. The form also asks, however, if the person is the “actual buyer” of the firearm. Nothing in the GCA specifically addresses or mandates this question.

The government claimed Abramski violated the law because he falsely indicated on the Form 4473 that he was “actual buyer” of the firearm, when he knew that the firearm was being bought by money provided by his uncle and for the ultimate receipt of his uncle. 

BATFE justifies the “actual buyer” question on the basis of preventing “straw purchases,” in which one person buys a firearm on behalf of another.  Yet straw purchasing laws are designed to keep people from acquiring firearms on behalf of criminals or dangerous persons.  As Abramski noted to the Court, prior to 1995, even BATFE did not consider one person obtaining a firearm on behalf of another as a material violation if the intended recipient was not prohibited. 

According to Justice Kagan’s opinion, however, the governmental interest at stake in the case is that a non-prohibited person might want to go through a straw purchaser if the non-prohibited person wants the gun for an unlawful purpose. This is because if the gun is ultimately recovered at a crime scene, it would be traced back to the straw purchaser, not to any subsequent “off the books” recipient.  By a five to four margin, the Supreme Court upheld Abramski’s conviction for violating both provisions of the GCA.

In this case, however, Ambraski’s uncle ultimately received the firearm through an FFL. In other words, his purchase was not off the books. He himself would be on record as receiving the firearm from the FFL in his state of residence.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a vigorous dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Scalia argued that “the government interprets [the GCA] to punish conduct that its plain language simply does not reach.” 

In refuting the majority’s argument that the GCA should be read to regulate beyond the initial purchaser interacting with the dealer, Scalia noted, “We interpret criminal statutes, like other statutes, in a manner consistent with ordinary English usage.” Scalia went on to explain, “In ordinary usage, a vender sells (or delivers, or transfers) an item of merchandise to the person who physically appears in his store… So if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store ‘sells’ the milk and eggs to me.”

Taking issue with the majority’s contention that the purposes of the GCA would be severely undermined were people able to buy guns on behalf of others, Scalia cited examples in which the federal government does not consider such an act a violation of the GCA. These include guns intended as gifts, guns intended for resale, and guns intended for raffle prizes. Scalia adds, “If the statute’s requirements were ‘rendered meaningless’ by treating Abramski rather than his uncle as the true purchaser, then they would be every bit as meaningless in the scenarios just described.”

Scalia’s dissent also pointed out that the BATFE has not always held the position that Abramski’s conduct was unlawful. Scalia notes that BATFE did not take its current position on the matter until the 1990s. He also pointed out the majority’s error in ignoring this fact, stating, “the fact that the agency charged with enforcing the Act read it, over a period of roughly 25 years, not to apply to the type of conduct at issue here is powerful evidence that interpreting the Act in that way is natural and reasonable and does not make its requirements ‘meaningless.’”

Regarding the matter of whether Abramski falsified information that is required to be kept in a dealer’s records, Scalia noted the question Abramski falsified is not information the GCA requires FFLs to keep. Scalia outlined the unsettling nature of the majority’s position, stating, “On the majority’s view, if the bureaucrats responsible for creating the Form 4473 decided to ask about the buyer’s favorite color, a false response would be a federal crime.”

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund participated in the case before the Supreme Court by filing a friend of the court brief. The brief emphasized the lack of statutory authority for the “actual buyer” question at issue in the case. It also argued that the government’s position in the case ignored the fact that Congress’ intent in enacting the GCA was to prevent the transfer to and possession of firearms by persons Congress had statutorily classified as “potentially irresponsible and dangerous.” On the other hand, the brief noted, “Congress did not intend to per se prohibit the purchase of a firearm by an individual on behalf of another.” The brief additionally pointed out BATFE’s own inconsistent interpretations of whether the purchase of a firearm by one party on behalf of another constitutes an illegal straw purchase when neither is a prohibited person.

IN THIS ARTICLE
Supreme Court BATFE
TRENDING NOW
Trump Administration Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Provision

News  

Friday, March 21, 2025

Trump Administration Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Provision

On March 20, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published an interim final rule entitled, Withdrawing the Attorney General’s Delegation of Authority. That bland title belies the historic nature of the measure, which is aimed at reviving ...

Colorado: FOID Bill On Governor Polis' Desk, More Gun Control On the Move

Wednesday, April 2, 2025

Colorado: FOID Bill On Governor Polis' Desk, More Gun Control On the Move

As the clock runs down on Governor Polis' 10-day window to veto Senate Bill 25-003, the semi-auto ban turned FOID-scheme bill, he continues to sit on his hands and let the bill gather dust on his ...

Maine: Bipartisan Coalition Deals Major Blow to Gun Control Bills in Committee

Friday, April 4, 2025

Maine: Bipartisan Coalition Deals Major Blow to Gun Control Bills in Committee

On Thursday, April 3rd, the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary held work sessions on several gun-related bills. 

Tennessee: Gun Bills Advance through House Subcommittees

Friday, April 4, 2025

Tennessee: Gun Bills Advance through House Subcommittees

This week in Tennessee, the House Criminal Justice subcommittee and the House Civil Justice subcommittee dispensed with all the firearm-related bills on their calendar. The bills that passed through the subcommittees will advance to the ...

Supreme Court Upholds ATF Rule on “Firearms,” Unfinished Receivers and Kits

News  

Monday, March 31, 2025

Supreme Court Upholds ATF Rule on “Firearms,” Unfinished Receivers and Kits

On March 26, in a 7-2 decision (with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting), the United States Supreme Court upheld a Biden administration gun control rule on what constitutes a “firearm” under 18 U.S.C. ...

Canada: A Fresh Gun Ban as Trudeau Exits

News  

Monday, March 17, 2025

Canada: A Fresh Gun Ban as Trudeau Exits

Just three months ago, Canada’s Liberal government announced that an additional 324 so-called “assault-style” firearms had been added to the list of banned guns established under then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2020.

Rep. Hinson and Sen. Cotton Reintroduce Bill to Repeal Firearm Transfer Tax

News  

Thursday, April 3, 2025

Rep. Hinson and Sen. Cotton Reintroduce Bill to Repeal Firearm Transfer Tax

On April 1, 2025, Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA-02) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) reintroduced the Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty Excises Act, or the RIFLE Act. These bills (H.R. 2552 and S.1224 respectively) would remove a $200 excise tax that is imposed ...

Oregon: Permit-to-Purchase and FFL-Killer Bills Vote Delayed in Committee

Thursday, April 3, 2025

Oregon: Permit-to-Purchase and FFL-Killer Bills Vote Delayed in Committee

Yesterday, House Bill 3075 and House Bill 3076 were scheduled for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee. During the work session, the Committee Chair announced that the vote on these bills would be delayed until today, April 3rd, or ...

House Judiciary Committee Votes to Advance Concealed Carry Reciprocity Legislation

News  

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

House Judiciary Committee Votes to Advance Concealed Carry Reciprocity Legislation

On Tuesday, March 25, 2025, the House Judiciary Committee held a markup for several bills, including two NRA-backed bills. With this crucial step in the legislative process now complete, these pieces of legislation can now ...

Legislation Introduced to Prevent States from Taxing Guns and Ammunition

News  

Wednesday, April 2, 2025

Legislation Introduced to Prevent States from Taxing Guns and Ammunition

Last week, U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) and U.S. Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA-48) and Richard Hudson (R-NC-9) reintroduced the Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act (S.1169 and H.R.2442 respectively). This legislation would prohibit states from ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.