Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Straw is for Horses


The latest Supreme Court decision Abramski v. United States involved the limitation of so called “straw” purchases of guns.  I paste the article written by NBC News here and below.  In summary:

[Abramski] involved a Virginia resident, Bruce Abramski, who was convicted of committing a "straw" purchase of a Glock 19 because he answered 'yes' on the background check form 4473 when asked if the gun was being purchased for himself. In fact, he purchased the gun for his uncle, a resident of Pennsylvania, who sent him the money because Abramski was able to pay a discount price for the gun at a store near his own home. Abramski then took the gun to Pennsylvania, gave it to his uncle who gave him a receipt. The receipt turned up in Abramski's possession when his home was searched by police investigating an unrelated offense and it was this receipt that led to his ultimate conviction for lying on the 4473.
In other words, this case really was about whether or not the government could regulate firearm transactions at all [in this case “straw” purchases], not just about the behavior of a particular individual at the time he purchased a gun.

Barring “straw” purchases of guns, obviously, is not going to stop everyone from getting a gun and then giving it to someone unregistered, unknown to the state and to whom the gun should not be given. The point is to make it harder for those unfit to have guns to get them and easier for the state to know in whose hands all guns lie.  When one purchases a gun for another (a “straw” purchase) the state can have no idea for whom it was purchased or to whom it was given.  This SCOTUS decision will and should make it more difficult to make a purchase yourself as a legal gun owner and then give it to just anyone no questions asked.

Would one be permitted to not register a car? No, of course not, we register all cars as the state, for obvious reasons, must have the ability to see and, if necessary, to track down the owner of the car.  If a car did not have to be registered one can only imagine the mayhem that could and would take place.

Guns, yes, are used for sport and for defense BUT they are, in reality, killing machines. A gun even more than a car, is used to kill.  Guns are lethal weapons. Because of that they must be registered and straw purchases not allowed.  Moreover, the mentally ill and those felons convicted of a violent crime should not have them either.  Have I left anything out?  Yes, a ban on extra magazine clips used to make it easier for an inordinate number of bullets to kill more humans more quickly and AK47's used for nothing but mayhem. SCOTUS has, through the Heller decision and now the Abramski decision left an open door for the state to regulate guns and we should do so everywhere post haste.

Rightwingnut Second Amendment geniuses you are NOT -- I repeat NOT -- going to overthrow the US government of 350 million people.  You need to get that out of your overinflated heads. Unless climate change or a domestic, Christian or Islamic terrorist commits a mind numbing sickening act then the structure of what government you see is what government you will, in the future, get with the ability to institute legal change. It is amazing it has worked often well and, yes, sometimes not so well for nearly 250 years.

May it be the world's last best hope for those who want equality, justice and democracy to prevail 250 years and well beyond that! Our Founders would want no less!