Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Obama's judge make him happy.

SUPREME COURT RULES PRIVATE
GUN TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO
'STRAW PURCHASER' LAWS
Even When Used to Purchase
Firearms for Those Legally Eligible
ABRAMSKI RULING GIVES NEW
LIFE TO OBAMA'S USURPATIONS,
ILLICIT BACKGROUND CHECKS
SECURE OUR SECOND AMENDMENT
DEMAND CONGRESS FIGHT AGAINST
NATIONAL DATA REGISTRY, ATF TRICKS
URGENT ALERT: The Supreme Court has just ruled 5-4 supporting the Obama administration and gun control groups that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns applies NOT ONLY when a criminal is the ultimate buyer – as the law intended!
No, according to the liberals on the Court such bans can also be enforced when the ultimate purchaser of the firearms is LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN A GUN.
This is EXACTLY the kind of broad infringement of Second Amendment protections OBAMA, HOLDER, FEINSTEIN and BLOOMBERG have been desperate to be handed by our corrupted courts… CONGRESS MUST SECURE OUR RIGHTS!
Justice Elena Kagan writing the majority opinion argued that the enforcement of the "straw purchase" law across lawful, private transactions was critical to giving meaning to the federal government's background checks and record keeping efforts to help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. She said the gun control checks would mean little if a would-be gun owner-purchaser could evade them… even if the intended recipient of a firearm was a family member as happened in the Abramski case.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia was joined by the other court conservatives – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – in making the case that the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner.
In this case, Abramski – a former police officer – was simply hoping to get his uncle a good deal that he could not otherwise have gotten. He had the support of twenty-six states while nine states and Washington, D.C, filed papers supporting the Obama administration's re-interpretation of the law.

No comments: