Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Does Kagan opinion smack of gun registration(Philips Ultrasonic Probe)

Supreme Court ruled Monday that gun buyers must make it clear on their federal Form 4473 if they will keep the firearm or subsequently sell it, Philips Ultrasonic Probe and a remark in the majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan is sure to raise eyebrows among gun rights activists who worry about de facto registration.


The ruling, which may be read here, already has one well known Second Amendment scholar and legal expert concerned about "legislating from the bench," and he is saying so. Whether the ruling sends a signal that there has been a slight philosophical shift on the high court is another matter.


The case involves a former police officer, Bruce Abramski, Jr., who bought a pistol so he could in turn sell it to his uncle, which was done through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Both men could legally own the firearm in question, a Glock semi auto. Abramski, of Virginia, was convicted of making a straw purchase, despite his argument that, "So long as the person at the counter is eligible to own a gun, the sale to him is legal under the statute."


The ruling notes Abramski transferred the pistol to his uncle via a gun dealer, and his uncle filled out the form 4473. But Abramski was prosecuted for making a false claim on the original form on the grounds that he was not the actual buyer. It makes no difference that the uncle could legally buy a firearm. The 4473 specifically asks whether the person buying the gun is the actual buyer.


On Page 23 of the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy, Kagan wrote, "No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun's purchaser the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer." While federal firearms laws are aimed at keeping guns out of the wrong hands, does this comment suggest that the high court majority also thinks it is important to know who owns guns?