Abramski v. United States

Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a former police officer from Virginia bought and transferred a gun to his uncle, while falsely declaring that he is purchasing the gun for himself. The Court held that such conduct violates the Gun Control Act of 1968. Specifically, the Court 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 firearms dealer is required to maintain in record.^[3] 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 to gun control stated that it will help keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, while opponents of gun control stated that the ruling is a "horrible injustice".

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 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]

Factual background

Bruce Abramski, a former Roanoke, Virginia, police officer,^[4][5] offered to buy his uncle, Angel "Danny" Alvarez, a resident of Pennsylvania, a Glock 19 handgun, at a police discount.^[4] Agreeing, Alvarez sent Abramski a check, for $400, which stated "Glock 19 handgun" in the memo line.^[4][6] 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.^[7]

After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, Abramski contacted a Federal Firearms License|federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on Alvarez,^[8] and then proceeded to transfer the gun to Alvarez, through the FFL.^[8] Completing the transaction, Abramski deposited the check, and received a receipt from Alvarez. Later, Abramski was suspected of committing a bank robbery,^[5] and his house was searched by Federal agents who found the receipt.^[4]

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).^[3] The District Court denied both motions, and Abramski entered a conditional guilty plea, where he reserved the right to challenge the sentence.^[4] Abramski was then sentenced to five years of probation on every count.^[3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's conviction.^[7]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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 the 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.^[9]

The National Rifle Association (NRA) Civil Rights Defense Fund was one party that filled an amicus brief, supporting Abramski's defenses, and also pointing out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives itself interprets the law inconsistently when applied to straw buyers who buy the gun for a person that can legally buy it.^[8]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Kagan

The Court considered Abramski's theory, that the Federal law only cares about the person that is buying the gun and not the final buyer, and stated that this theory relies on the true fact that Federal gun law regulates transactions with “persons” or “transferees,” and does not mention straw buyers.

However, the majority found this theory not to be true. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Kagan on behalf of the majority, finds 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.^[10] The Court therefore preferred to interpret the terms “person,” and “transferee,” to mean “the man getting, and always meant to get, the firearm”.^[11]

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."^[12]

The Court also rejected Abramski's claim that the misrepresentation is not material, since Alvarez was able to buy the gun legally on his own, 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."^[13]

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.^[14]

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Fourth Circuit against Abramski.^[15]

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 section 922(a)(6).^[1]

Additionally, the dissent criticized the government's employment of the "agency law" principle to determine that Abramski was a third party’s common-law agent for Alvarez. Instead, the dissent held that common English should be used to interpret statutes, and therefore under the statue Abramski was the "person" buying the gun, not Alvarez.^[16]

Furthermore, the dissent held that the statute is not "rendered meaningless" simply because one can buy a gun on behalf of another, jut 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.^[17]

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 further held that considering this a requirement because the dealer is required to keep each Form 4473, is carrying the text to 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."^[18]

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.^[19]

Responses and analysis

Although not considered a "ground breaking rule" by some law reviewers,^[7] the case gained wide publicity and discussion from both proponents and opponents.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which was the only gun prevention group to file an amicus brief^[20][21] 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.”^[22][23] Another reporter also supported the ruling, stating that it is a "relief to law enforcement."^[24]

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."^[8]

John Lott, a gun rights advocate, criticized the Court's statement that collecting this "information helps to fight serious crime,"^[25] claiming that registration doesn’t help solving crimes, since registered guns are never left at the scene. For example, Hawaii's requirement to register guns hasn't solved a single crime in 50 years. 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."^[26]

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.^[27] 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.^[27]

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 573
• Gun law in the United States
• Firearm case law in the United States

References

External links

• Abramski v. United States - Supreme Court's slip opinion