Supreme Court: Ban on buying guns for others applies in all cases

A divided Supreme Court sided with gun-control groups and Barack Obama's administration on Monday, ruling that the federal ban on purchasing a gun for another person may be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the federal background check law applied to Bruce James Abramski Jr. when he bought a Glock 19 handgun and later transferred it to his uncle.

The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving or selling them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by getting another person to buy the gun a fill out the paperwork.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said 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.

The case began after Abramski bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, assured the Virginia dealer he was the actual buyer of the weapon even though he offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount.

Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle wrote him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, Abramski answered yes on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were filed for the robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a "straw purchaser" because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

The Obama administration argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated, since Congress requires gun dealers ­­— not purchasers — to run background checks on people buying guns.

Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.

The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration's.

The ruling was just one of several issued by the nation’s highest court on Monday. 

The Supreme Court also ruled that holders of defaulted Argentine bonds may force the South American country to reveal where its assets are held around the world.

The court's 7-1 ruling Monday will make it easier for the bondholders to collect on U.S. court judgments.

The decision followed a separate action Monday in which the justices turned down the country's appeal of a lower court ruling ordering it to pay $1.3 billion to hedge funds that hold some of the bonds.

The Supreme Court also agreed on Monday to the free speech rights of people who use violent or threatening language on Facebook and other electronic media when the speaker's intent is not always clear.

The case is about Anthony Elonis, an eastern Pennsylvania man sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison for posting violent online rants against his estranged wife, law enforcement officials and former co-workers.

A federal appeals court rejected Elonis' claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment. He says he never meant to carry out the threats. He claims he was depressed and made the online posts in the form of rap lyrics as a way of venting his frustration after his wife left him.

At his trial, the jury was instructed that he could be found guilty if an objective person could consider his posts threatening. Attorneys for Elonis argued that the jury should have been told to apply a subjective standard and decide whether he meant the messages to be understood as threats.

His lawyers say a subjective standard is appropriate, given the impersonal nature of communication over the Internet, which can lead people to misinterpret messages. They argue that comments intended for a smaller audience can be viewed by others unfamiliar with the context and interpreted differently from how they were intended.

The high court said it will consider whether conviction of threatening another person under federal law "requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten."

For more than 40 years, the Supreme Court has said that true threats to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has cautioned that laws prohibiting threats must not infringe on constitutionally protected speech. That includes political hyperbole and unpleasantly sharp attacks that fall shy of true threats.

Al Jazeera and The Associated Press