Abramski vs. United States - Research Paper Example

It should be noted that it is at this gun store at Pennsylvania that the gun was transferred to the uncle after he (the uncle) successfully passed the federal background check for the firearm position. Neither the two were prohibited by the law to possess a firearm (Abramski v. United States, 2013). In fact, before Abramski bought the gun, he inquired the legality of the process he intended to follow to purchase the gun for his uncle three federally licensed dealers who ascertain for him that the intended sale was legal.

However, since Abramski bought the firearm from a dealer licensed by the federal government, he had to fill a formed indicated that he was the “actual buyer.” Nonetheless, the ATF claimed that his uncle was the “actual buyer” and to this effect, Abramski made a false statement by filling out the firearm purchase form; hence, Abramski was convicted of felony. From the facts above, it is evident that neither Abramski nor his uncle was prohibited from buying a firearm for another legible user or possessing a gun.

Additionally, the transfer of the firearm in question between the two followed a due procedure; therefore, Abramski was unduly convicted for the purchase and transfer of the gun to his uncle. Therefore, following the conviction, the following concerns need to be addressed. 1. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell the firearm to another buyer a “material fact” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (b), a firearm disclosure statute? 2. Is a federally licensed firearms dealer required to keep information regarding a purchaser’s intent to sell a firearm to another person?

Reactions to the above concerns in the order of listing It is worth noting that the federal law illegalizes a person buying of a gun from a federally licensed dealer “knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement … intended or likely to deceive … with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale ….” 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (6). Notably, this is the provision of the federal government that it uses to prosecute the “straw purchases”. This provision prohibits an individual (the “straw purchaser”) from buying a firearm on behave of another person (the “actual buyer”).

According to the government, this process may be a maneuver that may be used actual buyer to obtain a firearm even if the actual buyer is legally deterred from buying the same. It should be noted that the treatment of the final owner of the firearm as the actual buyer and purchaser as a “straw man” are doctrine created by the court. According to the court, a buyer’s intent is to resell the gun to another user who cannot purchase the same legally and this contributes to a fact “material to lawfulness of the sale.

” However, the fourth and sixth as well as the eleventh circuit are separated from the fifth and ninth circuits that try to determine whether ultimate owner of the firearm can legally buy a gun. Notably, the law court concluded this case that the actual buyer’s identity is material regardless of legality of a person who can buy the gun or note. In other words, under § 922(a) (6), the identity of firearm purchaser is usually constant or is material regardless of the lawfulness of the actual purchaser of the firearm.

Combining the effects or understanding of these provisions, the laws therefore dictates that the terms of sales may change depending on the purchases identity; hence, the purchaser remaining material to the lawfulness with firearm sale does not exist in this case. The above