|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 26, 2024, 01:27 PM | #51 | |||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,486
|
John, I've bolded some words below, and those emphases are mine.
Quote:
Quote:
One could be idiomatically correct in noting that there was diversity within the law prior to Abramski (the Sup Ct decision rather than the man), but that construction would support Aguila Blanca's observation of lack of clarity. With the table set, Quote:
The law was equivocal prior to the decision in Abramski. That doesn't mean that the [singular] law in circuits with contrary caselaw (a form of law) aren't law, they just aren't the law. I have not claimed that the decisions of courts that had decided consistent with Abramski weren't law. Quote:
If you don't concede that Abramski produced the singular law on this point, meaning that it settled the circuit split, then we have more work to do. If you do already know that, then your protest about a strawman doesn't work for you. In our system, courts make laws frequently; that's the body of case law. The Sup Ct makes laws frequently. We now have caselaw that a federal moratorium on state evictions as recently arose is not within federal authority. The caselaw on that point arises from the Sup Ct's decision. Quote:
Addressing this isn't pointless since it resolves an equivocation for the purpose of explaining the issue. Where you understand that law on this specific point was diverse and there was a split prior to Abramski, you agree that it produced the singular law on the point that there is now. Quote:
An illustration of your confidence in an assertion that is not correct or relevant to the explanation is as good a time as any to wind this up. Feel free to chase your tail if it continues to please you.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||||||||||
February 27, 2024, 12:27 AM | #52 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,058
|
Quote:
Abramski did settle a circuit split by confirming an existing law. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're getting more and more creative and more and more deliberately (and needlessly) esoteric in your responses. I understand why you feel that's necessary, but it's not really a very complicated topic and the principles are actually pretty simple. To save a lot of typing, let's take a step back and consider some simple questions with simple answers. 1. Is it your contention that the law in question came into being when SCOTUS ruled on it? 2. Is it your contention that there was no legal basis for arresting/prosecuting convicting Abramski? If there was, what was it? 3. Is it your contention that even though SCOTUS has ruled on the law that it still remains questionable? If so, why is it still questionable? 4. On what basis would one challenge a "questionable" law that has been confirmed by SCOTUS? If there is no basis, how is the law questionable? 5. Is it your contention that a circuit ruling invalidates a law everywhere in the country and that state of affairs remains in place, countrywide unless/until SCOTUS takes a second case and rules in favor of the law? If so, what is the basis for prosecution in the second case? 6. Do you believe that there is any way for a law to cease to be questionable if its interpretation has ever changed in the past? 7. Do you believe that there is any way for a law to cease to be questionable if there have ever been differing rulings in the courts?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
March 13, 2024, 09:09 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,958
|
Thanks for all the Replies and great info, but I’m still not sure, is using another persons CC to purchase a firearm online for myself a straw purchase.
|
March 13, 2024, 09:49 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,486
|
Quote:
As a practical matter, the "but" will be the more important part of the answer for a transferee. ...your FFL may like to operate according to some brightline rules that don't make him or his staff wonder why you aren't paying with your own CC. Vendors aren't typically looking for trouble or the chance to make a point with their licensing authorities. A purchase in which you point to the firearm you want, fill out the 4473 and pay with your own card or money is the straight over the plate pattern that doesn't have him wondering if you are really purchasing on your own behalf.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; March 13, 2024 at 11:00 AM. |
|
|
|