Supreme Court Considers Straw Gun Purchases

Supreme Court Considers Straw Gun Purchases

In this case the Supreme Court will consider whether purchasing a gun with the intent of reselling to another person, all done legally, is a ‘straw gun’ purchase. Emily Miller states the following:

The Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear the case of a Virginia man who bought a gun for his uncle and was then convicted of committing a “straw purchase.” The high court will determine whether it is a crime to buy a gun with the intent to resell to another lawful person.

Arguments for Abramski v. United States will take place in January. Bruce Abramski, a retired police officer, bought a handgun for his elderly uncle because he could get it at discount as former law enforcement. Mr. Abramski checked the box on the federal background check form that said he was the “actual buyer.” . . .

This will be a very important case.

Read more of the discussion here.

Second Amendment – The Anti-Gun Agenda Continues Its Assault

Second Amendment – The Anti-Gun Agenda Continues Its Assault

The article provides many examples of the Left’s continual assault on the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is greatly valued by honest, hardworking, law-abiding citizens. The attack on the Second Amendment is relentless, and from the comments in the article, greatly exaggerated.

. . . While Brady officials insist their motives are pure, a behind the scenes look at that organization raises serious questions. In May 2005, Florida passed a “Stand Your Ground” law that authorized persons attacked in their own home or automobile to use lethal force in self-defense without a duty to retreat; Brady Campaign workers were dispatched to Florida airports where they passed out fliers warning tourists that, under what they called the “Shoot First” law, tourists could be shot for simply being rude to a Florida resident.

Last year the Brady Campaign gave its “Visionary Award” to AP White House reporter Helen Thomas. Little more than a week later Thomas went on a video taped, anti-semitic rant that resulted in condemnation from the Obama Administration as well as her resignation from AP. The Brady Campaign has remained silent on the entire issue, refusing to condemn Thomas or her hate filled rant.

As the ‘12 Presidential Campaign looms, President Obama himself has been remarkedly silent on the issue of gun rights. He must know that waging an open war against the NRA and America’s 80,000,000 gun owners during this campaign season will only hurt his prospects for re-election. He’s also well aware of the two recent Supreme Court decisions District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, decisions that make it clear that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

In Attorney General Eric Holder’s brief filed with the Supreme Court in Heller he argued that “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” that it only protected government militias’ rights to guns. He claimed that the Second Amendment posed no obstacle to implementing gun bans. His argument failed, but his anti-gun agenda continues. . . .

Read more here

A Victory for Gun Rights and Freedom – Looking Back at the Supreme Court’s Chicago Decision

A Victory for Gun Rights and Freedom – Looking Back at the Supreme Court’s Chicago Decision

Jacob Hornberger’s editorial on the Supreme Court’s ruling against Chicago’s handgun ban last year is worth rereading.

He draws attention to the incredible blindspot that statist gun control advocates have when the law allows gun rights to prevail. Hornberger illustrates the statist blindness by citing a New York Times editorial that howled about the ‘gun violence’ in Chicago, and the how-could-the-Supreme-Court-possibly-rule-like-they-did? Amazing, that is the point. Chicago’s example, with its strict, draconian, unconstitutional gun control laws, has not worked in real life. GET IT?

A Victory for Gun Rights and Freedom
by Jacob G. Hornberger

When it comes to gun rights and gun control, liberals are so predictable. Condemning the Supreme Court’s decision in the Chicago gun case that applied the Second Amendment to the states, the New York Times editorialized, “Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws — to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials.”

What is the Times’ justification for taking such an extreme position? The Times states: “The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally.”

What? Say again?

What the Times claims about gun deaths in Chicago last year has got to be absolutely and totally false! Why is that so? Because they have gun control in Chicago! A total ban on handguns! Doesn’t the Times know that? Doesn’t it know that that was what the Supreme Court case was all about — the constitutionality of Chicago’s total ban on handguns within the city?

Therefore, the obvious question arises: How can the Times claim that there were 258 people shot in Chicago when there is gun control in Chicago? Doesn’t that suggest something important? As in, gun control doesn’t work! If a gun ban worked, there wouldn’t have been any people shot by guns in Chicago.


And that is the blind spot that statists have about gun control. In their antipathy for guns, they will not permit themselves to see that gun control doesn’t work — it doesn’t accomplish what they want to accomplish — i.e., no more gun deaths. . . .

Read the rest of Hornberger’s excellent gun rights editorial at
The Future of Freedom Foundation. He includes some great history on gun rights in his editorial.

The original NYT editorial Hornberger refers to can be found here.