Category Archives: Supreme Court

Abramski conviction upheld by Supreme Court.

Posted on by

WASHINGTON D.C. – The Supreme Court decided in the case of Abramski v. United States (PDF) that straw purchases—such as those orchestrated by the Eric Holder BATFE for Operation Fast and Furious which took the life of Arizona Border Patrol agent Brian Terry—are illegal. The 5-4 decision was split along party line with Justice Kennedy again being the swing vote.

Mike Gangloff of the The Roanake Times in Virginia wrote a detail account in December of 2010 on the background of Bruce Abramski, Jr.—the defendant in the case. The basic line is that Abramski purchased a Glock 19 fully intending to transfer the weapon to his uncle in Pennsylvania for cash. He purchased the weapon using a police discount on an identification he held after he was released by the police department two years earlier. They transferred the weapon using the background check required by law which revealed that his uncle was legally eligible to receive the weapon.

Abramski was charged with lying on line 11a of ATF Form 4473 which is a felony under United State Code 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). He checked the box indicating that he was the purchaser of the weapon. He was sentenced to probation instead of the ten-years imprisonment he faced. He maintains a felony conviction, however.

atf-4473-question11a

The problem in the case was what constitutes a “straw purchase.” In essence a straw purchase is when a straw purchases a weapon for another person using the intended receivers money even if both are eligible to purchase firearms. This apparently does not apply to a person purchasing a firearm as a bona fide gift.

In a January article on Guns.com NRA Spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen told them via email:

This is another case of the BATFE attempting to criminalize the legal activity of law-abiding gun owners. In this case, both the buyer and his uncle submitted to and passed the requisite background checks to own the firearm in question. Congress did not criminalize the transfer of firearms between persons who are both legally entitled to purchase the firearm. Rather, Congress’ objective was to prevent individuals from purchasing firearms on behalf of prohibited persons and that is – in fact – what the law provides.

Justice Kagan, writing the decision for the majority, stated:

Abramski also challenges his §922(a)(6) conviction on a narrower ground. For purposes of this argument, he assumes that the Government can make its case when a straw hides the name of an underlying purchaser who is legally ineligible to own a gun. But, Abramski reminds us, that is not true here, because Alvarez could have bought a gun for himself. In such circumstances, Abramski claims that a false response to Question 11.a. is not material. … Essentially, Abramski contends, when the hidden purchaser is eligible anyway to own a gun, all’s well that ends well, and all should be forgiven.

But we think what we have already said shows the fallacy of that claim: Abramski’s false statement was material because had he revealed that he was purchasing the gun on Alvarez’s behalf, the sale could not have proceeded under the law—even though Alvarez turned out to be an eligible gun owner.

…

If the dealer here, Town Police Supply, had realized it was in fact selling a gun to Alvarez, it would have had to stop the transaction for failure to comply with those conditions. Yet more, the sale could not have gone forward because the dealer would have lacked the information needed to verify and record Alvarez’s identity and check his background.

The dissenters made the argument that this particular purchase constituted a gift more than a straw purchase. This decision seems to keep in tact the provision that a person can purchase a weapon as a gift for another—provided both are legally eligible to possess firearms. A husband can purchase a weapon for his wife as a gift, for example, provided that he knows that she is legally allowed to own firearms. This does not necessarily mean a felony conviction, but if the receiver has certain mental instability, drug abuse problems or the like, they may not be legally allowed to possess firearms.

See also: Federal Firearms “Cheatsheet” PDF

High court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Posted on by

MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

council-prayerWASHINGTON (AP) — A narrowly divided Supreme Court upheld decidedly Christian prayers at the start of local council meetings on Monday, declaring them in line with long national traditions though the country has grown more religiously diverse.

The content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or try to win converts, the court said in a 5-4 decision backed by its conservative majority.

Though the decision split the court along ideological lines, the Obama administration backed the winning side, the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester.

The outcome relied heavily on a 1983 decision in which the court upheld an opening prayer in the Nebraska Legislature and said prayer is part of the nation’s fabric, not a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

Read more at WTOP 103.5 FM, Washington

Supreme Court skeptical of greenhouse gas permits

Posted on by

Justices appear to be leaning toward a ruling that would eliminate just one method the Environmental Protection Agency uses to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources

1372376433000-ourviewWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday appeared headed toward restricting the federal government’s authority to require permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Such a ruling from the court’s conservative wing wouldn’t affect an effort by the Obama administration to regulate the sources of global warming, but it would eliminate one method of doing so.

At issue is the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to change the threshold in the Clean Air Act for the amount of emissions from a power plant, refinery or other stationary source that requires a permit. Liberal justices said it was a reasonable move to avoid an absurd over-regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, but conservatives said it went too far.

Read more at USA Today.

Supreme Court Tears Into Fifth Amendment, Rules Silence Can Be Used Against You If Questioned

Posted on by

dissent-silencedScott Shackford

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute explains that the Salinas v. Texas case was intended to be about whether prosecutors during a trial could cast aspersions on a defendant’s silence during questioning that took place prior to arrest — prior to the defendent being told he had the right to remain silent. Instead, the Supreme Court determined that they wouldn’t need to rule on the matter because the defendant had never invoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection. This decision means that it’s the responsibility of the individual to know about the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment even prior to arrest and to actually verbally invoke it:

The Court said Salinas simply remained silent and did not “formally” invoke any constitutional right, so prosecutors could offer commentary to the jury. What’s most disturbing about the ruling is its discussion of “burdens.” The plurality put the onus on the individual, not the government. That is the profound error in the decision. As the dissenters noted, in the circumstances of the case, it was evident what Salinas was doing. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has complicated the law for persons who are the most vulnerable–persons who lack education, persons who do not speak English very well, persons who may suffer from mental problems, and persons who may be under the influence of alcohol. This is a bad day for the Bill of Rights.

Read more at Prince Vega

Court sides with student in case over textbooks

Posted on by

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that textbooks and other goods made and sold abroad can be re-sold online and in discount stores without violating U.S. copyright law.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court threw out a copyright infringement award to publisher John Wiley & Sons against Thai graduate student Supap Kirtsaeng, who used eBay to resell copies of the publisher’s copyrighted books that his relatives first bought abroad at cut-rate prices.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his opinion for the court that once goods are sold lawfully, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, publishers and manufacturers lose the protection of U.S. copyright law.

“We hold that the ‘first sale’ doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad,” Breyer said.

Had the court come out the other way, it would have crimped the sale of many goods sold online and in discount stores, and it would have complicated the tasks of museums and libraries that contain works produced outside the United States, Breyer said. Retailers told the court that more than $2.3 trillion worth of foreign goods were imported in 2011, and that many of these goods were bought after they were first sold abroad, he said.

Read more at Yahoo! News

Upcoming Supreme Court case could affect Internet book sales

Posted on by

On the 29th, the Supreme Court will hear a case which could affect booksellers using Internet sites such as E-Bay and Amazon. In question is whether or not selling books printed in foreign countries can be sold through these outlets without the permission of the Copyright owner.

The Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit in New York decided in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, 654 F.3d 210, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1641, 2011 ILRC 2481 (2d Cir. 2011) that the first sale doctrine of the Copyright law does not include works made overseas. The first sale doctrine in effect since 1908 allows a person to purchase books for resale without limitations imposed by the Copyright owner.

The defendant in the 2nd Circuit court case, Supap Kirtsaeng moved to the U.S. from Thailand to attend college. The action alleges that Kirtsaeng then began to ship editions of textbooks printed by John Wiley & Sons in Asia and selling them on the Internet through E-Bay.

The Copyright holder, John Wiley and Sons, sued to stop the sales. The court decided that the first sale doctrine does not apply to works printed overseas.

Kirtsaeng is taking the case to the Supreme Court.

This could call into question whether or not you can sale books or other Copyrighted material that you purchased overseas while on vacation at a yard sale.

Grieving for Freedom

Posted on by

By Van Irion

Whether you realize it or not, all freedom-loving people are grieving our lost freedom this Independence Day. Psychologists teach that the first reaction to devastating loss is denial. When we lose something that we love, our minds initially deny the event in order to survive the shock. After denial comes bargaining, anger, depression, and finally acceptance. Each stage of grief allows our minds to absorb the new reality and grieve the loss of something cherished.

Last week’s devastating Supreme Court rulings have caused various reactions. Many insist upon explaining Roberts’ ruling as political genius. Some search for a silver lining in the ruling. Others focus on the upcoming election. All of these reactions reflect the first two stages of grief. Most Americans are still in denial or are attempting to bargain-away the shocking loss of freedom inflicted by those that were supposed to defend our freedom.

Some of us have already moved on to anger. Please join us. Anger is a gift.

Unlike people, freedom can be restored. No matter how much freedom is taken away, it can always be taken back. But it will not be given. Those that enslave do not give back freedom willingly. We must fight them for it. So, anger is a useful emotion when grieving for freedom. Anger will motivate us to act.

Stop denying our loss of freedom by imagining genius in Justice Roberts’ treasonous act. Killing constitutional principals in the name of short-term political payback is not genius. It’s an insult to every man or woman that ever died defending freedom.

Stop claiming that Roberts’ ruling is a victory because it created a limit on the commerce clause. The commerce clause is no more limited than it was before the ruling. Prior to Obamacare no one would have imagined that the commerce clause could possibly justify regulation of lack-of-commerce. Last week’s ruling simply confirmed what we already knew. But it left the commerce clause exactly where it has been since Wickard v. Filburn. In fact, the ruling explicitly acknowledged that the rule from Wickard is still the accepted commerce clause rule. This is the rule that got us to where we are today. Why is anyone celebrating this? The answer is: DENIAL.
Continue reading →

Governor Brewer vetoes bills strengthening Sheriff controls and endorsing the Second Amendment

Posted on by

PHOENIX—Governor Jan Brewer, whose finger-wag was seen ’round the world, vetoed Arizona H.B. 2434 which would have required federal law enforcement officials to report to the County Sheriff prior to taking any law enforcement action.

In her April 11th letter, she informed House Speaker Andy Tobin of her concerns with interference with federal agencies.

“This legislation has the potential to interfere with law enforcement investigations and adds unneeded reporting requirements for law enforcement. Rather than hinder the efforts of our federal law enforcement colleagues, we need to focus on collaboration,” she wrote.

She noted that the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Intelligence Center gathers local, state and federal law enforcement to jointly fight against terrorism and other serious crimes. Apparently that does not include securing the southern border.

The Governor also vetoed House Joint Resolution 2001 “Authorizing opposition to the use of an international force on american soil that seeks to enforce any united Nations treaty that has not been ratified by the United States senate.”

The resolution reads:

Whereas, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution firmly states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”; and

Whereas, Article II, section 26, Arizona Constitution, states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired”; and

Whereas, member nations of the United Nations have formed committees with the intent to regulate private firearm ownership; and

Whereas, the United Nations committees have held hearings on the Arms Trade Treaty, which includes regulation of private firearms ownership; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States prevents the President from enacting a treaty without ratification from the United States Senate; and

Whereas, the National Rifle Association has secured the commitment from 58 current United States senators that they would not ratify the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty as long as it includes regulation of private firearms ownership; and

Whereas, the United Nations Security Council regularly shows its disregard for sovereign nations and their constitutions and laws; and

Whereas, the United Nations has used force to disarm citizens of a sovereign nation in the past, which led to mass killings by bladed weapons; and

Whereas, the United Nations often uses international forces to impose its will on sovereign nations.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

1. That the State of Arizona opposes any use of an international force on American soil that seeks to enforce any United Nations treaty that has not been properly ratified by the United States Senate.

2. That the State of Arizona authorizes using organized resistance to thwart any international force that infringes on the United States Constitution or any of its amendments.

Continue reading →