Abramski v. United States

Facts

In the fall of 2009, Abramski offered to buy a firearm for his uncle, Angel Alvarez, because as a former police officer, Abramski could receive a discount at a local Virginia gun store. Three federally-licensed firearms dealers advised Abramski that he could purchase the gun in Virginia and transfer it with a licensed gun dealer in Pennsylvania, where his uncle lived. Alvarez sent a check for $400 to Abramski with the note “Glock 19 handgun” on the memo line, and Abramski went to the local gun dealer and purchased the gun and several other items for his uncle. At the time of purchase, Abramski was required to complete a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) form. One of the questions asked Abramski if he was the “actual buyer” of the gun and explicitly stated that he was not the buyer if he was buying the gun for someone else. Abramski checked the box “yes.”

In the summer of 2010, Abramski was arrested on charges related to a bank robbery committed several days before the gun purchase. In the process of searching Abramski’s residences for evidence related to those charges, the FBI found a written receipt from Alvarez recording the gun transfer. Federal authorities never filed bank robbery charges against Abramski and the state charges were dismissed. However, after the dismissal, a federal grand jury indicted Abramski for making a false statement on the ATF form claiming he was the actual gun purchaser in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and § 924(a)(2), and making a false statement about information required to be kept by a firearms dealer in violation of § 924(a)(1)(A). Abramski filed two motions to dismiss the charges, both of which were denied by the federal district court. He then entered a conditional guilty plea as part of a plea bargain with the United States Attorney. He then filed a limited appeal to the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the district court decisions. Abramski then petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted on October 15, 2013.

top

Discussion

Abramski argues that the district court exceeded its statutory authority by applying the straw purchaser doctrine to this case because the ultimate purchaser is a lawful gun buyer. In response, the United States argues that it is irrelevant whether the ultimate purchaser is a lawful gun buyer and that straw purchases are clearly forbidden by the statutory text, not by judge-made doctrine.

CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE

In support of Abramski, Congressman Steve Stockman, Robert E. Sanders (a former ATF official), and gun advocacy groups argue that Congress did not intend to require dealers to verify the identity of the actual gun purchaser, but only the identity of the transferee. This group of amici further argues that requiring gun dealers to verify the identity of the actual owner undermines Congress’s goal of speedy background checks.

Also in support of Abramski, the National Rifle Association (NRA) argues that Congress did not intend to prohibit purchases by lawful gun owners. The NRA group contends that Congress intended only to forbid sales to certain prohibited persons and that the current interpretation of the law incorrectly criminalizes behavior by lawful purchasers.

In response, the United States argues that permitting straw purchases would frustrate the Gun Control Act’s recordkeeping and screening functions. In the government’s view, allowing such purchases would force initial buyers/transferees to determine the lawfulness of a transfer. These transferees, the government argues, are unlikely to be trained in federal firearms laws or to utilize the national background check database required of licensed federal firearms dealers. The United States further argues that Congress intended the law to aid law enforcement in crime scene analysis by requiring thorough recordkeeping in all purchases, even those involving lawful purchasers. The United States warns that when a straw purchaser and actual buyer are not well-acquainted, tracing often ends at the straw purchase, thereby hindering investigations. The United States also argues that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has prohibited straw purchaser sales for at least twenty years and that such a prohibition is required by statute, not by judge- or agency-made policy.

GUN OWNERSHIP RIGHTS

Robert Snellings, a California resident facing similar charges, argues that the prevailing interpretation of the Gun Control Act is too vague to be enforceable and violates the fundamental rights of individuals to own firearms. Snellings further argues that the current interpretation could have a chilling effect on private party gun sales.

The United States maintains that the statute clearly identifies who is and is not a “lawful purchaser.” Moreover, the United States rejects the claim that this case implicates Second Amendment concerns. In the United States’ view, because Abramski’s uncle is not between 18- and 20-years-old, the Court need not resolve whether the federal prohibition on sales by licensed firearms dealers to 18- to 20-year-olds is consistent with the Second Amendment.

STATE AUTHORITY

West Virginia and a group of twenty-five other states and Guam argue that prohibiting straw man purchases would interfere with the rights of states to regulate private intrastate transfer of firearms by forbidding them outright, while many states permit such transfers under certain circumstances.

In response, the United States argues that such a prohibition enhances state authority by preventing an individual from using a straw purchaser in a different state to subvert the regulatory scheme of a particular state.

top

Analysis

The parties disagree on two key points: whether the Petitioner Abramski’s false statement was “material to the lawfulness of the sale” under § 922(a)(6) of the Gun Control Act, and whether the Petitioner’s plan to ultimately sell the gun to a third party is information “required to be kept” under § 924 (a)(1)(A).

“MATERIAL”

Both Abramski and the United States agree that Kungys v. United States controls the meaning of the term “material” in a criminal statute. A statement “is material if it ‘has a natural tendency to influence . . . the decision of’ the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.” However, while Abramski argues that his false statement was not material to the lawfulness of the sale, the United States contends that the statement was material.

IDENTITY OF THE TRUE BUYER

Abramski argues that although he falsely stated that he was the actual buyer of the gun, even if Abramski had indicated that he intended to sell the gun to his uncle, the sale of the gun would have been legal. Abramski points out that the government does not prohibit sales of firearms to individuals who plan on reselling it to another buyer, assuming the other buyer is a lawful one. Consequently, the firearm dealer could have sold the gun to Abramski even if Abranski had informed the dealer that he intended to resell the gun to his uncle, and thus Abramski’s false statement was not material to the lawfulness of the sale.

In direct opposition, the United States contends that the dealer would not have been able to sell the firearm to Abramski’s uncle legally since dealers cannot sell handguns to people whom the dealer has a reasonable cause to believe resides in a different State. The United States also maintains that the true identity of the firearm purchaser was Abramski’s uncle, not Abramski himself. Significantly, the United States argues that the true identity of a firearm purchaser implicates the lawfulness of a sale. The United States asserts that the individual to whom the original buyer intends to resell is the true buyer of the firearm, and the identity of this individual is material to the lawfulness of the sale. Specifically, the United States contends that a firearm dealer must know the true identity of the buyer in order to correctly apply the statute’s requirements and prohibitions. Therefore, the United States maintains that concealing a true buyer prevents a seller from recording the true buyer’s name, verifying the identity, and submitting this information for a criminal background check to approve the sale. Finally, the United States emphasizes that Abramski’s liability stems from knowingly making a material false statement when buying the firearms, not from later reselling the gun to his uncle.

Relatedly, Abramski opines that the term “actual buyer” does not appear in the text of the Gun Control Act and thus he was not on notice of the alleged crime. Rather, the term appears in the ATF form required for gun purchases, and the question alone does not have legal force. Accordingly, Abramski claims that his statement was not actually false; it was only false because of the court-created straw purchaser doctrine and the term “actual buyer,” which does not appear in the statute.

In response, the United States argues that any improper notice issues are not properly before the Court. The United States maintains that this question is time-barred, and that even if the Court considered the question, it would not be a defense against making a false statement.

STRAW PURCHASER DOCTRINE AND AGENCY LAW

Abramski contends that the use of the straw purchaser doctrine (where the original purchaser is considered a “straw” purchaser since they intend to resell the firearm to another individual, the true purchaser) is a court-created doctrine that goes beyond the plain text of the Gun Control Act. Abramski asserts that the federal courts originally created the doctrine to address a statutory loophole in the Gun Control Act—ineligible purchasers could use a “straw man” to buy a firearm. Congress, however, later closed this loophole, and Abramski contends that Congress deliberately did not prohibit reselling to other lawful buyers. Accordingly, Abramski asserts that using the straw purchaser doctrine to criminalize activity where the second purchaser is legal would impermissibly alter the Gun Control Act. Here, because the ultimate buyer was legal, Abramski claims that the straw purchaser doctrine should not apply.

In opposition, the United States contends that Abramski’s false statement is illegal regardless of any judicially-created doctrine. Specifically, the United States argues that Abramski’s liability stems from the text of the Gun Control Act. Accordingly, the United States maintains that prosecuting straw purchases does not impermissibly expand judicial power.

The United States also argues that agency law, not specifically the straw purchaser doctrine, incriminates making a false statement about the identity of the actual buyer. The government maintains that the Gun Control Act has at least two purposes: to ensure that those who possess firearms are legally eligible, and that the identities of those in possession of firearms are known. Dealers that do not maintain adequate records may become criminally liable. The United States asserts that the government has an interest in keeping tabs on both illegal and legal buyers; for example, an eligible buyer may obtain a firearm that is later used in a crime. Therefore, even if Abramski resold the firearm to a legal buyer, his false statement implicates the latter goal: identification of those who possess firearms. The United States also points to the Gun Control Act’s tight regulations on sales to buyers who are physically absent as proof of Congress’s focus on the identity of the true purchaser of a firearm. Furthermore, the United States asserts that a complete rejection of the straw purchaser doctrine would render sales to illegal purchases legal.

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE GUN CONTROL ACT

Abramski contends that the Gun Control Act does not require a dealer to obtain information about transfers to third parties. Abramski asserts that he was charged with making a false statement about the existence of an actual buyer, not about the name, age, or location of the buyer. Since the Gun Control Act only requires the name, age, and location of the buyer, he contends that the government cannot prosecute him for not providing information about the intent to transfer the firearm to his uncle.

Conversely, the United States argues that the Gun Control Act mandates the name, age, and place of residence of the true buyer, not just the straw purchaser. Therefore, Abramski made a false statement about information that firearm dealers are required to keep.

top

Conclusion

In this case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to clarify whether the Gun Control Act of 1968 forbids all straw purchases of firearms, regardless of whether the true buyer is a lawful purchaser or not. The Court will also decide whether the identity of the intended buyer is a fact material to the sale of a firearm. The Court’s decision will likely settle a circuit split regarding the lawfulness of this type of intermediary gun purchase. The decision will also establish what records a dealer is required to keep and whether an individual may ever buy a gun on behalf of someone else.

top