The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2014 | Page 26

SLIP Student Essays
Abramski v. United States
By Courtney Taylor
Stockbridge High School, Interned with
Clayton County Circuit Defender

E

very citizen has a right to life. The Declaration of
Independence even states that, “all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Each person’s
unalienable right to life is and should always be protected by
the government to which they belong. While the government
may not be able to prevent all tragedies from happening to
its citizens, it does have the power and systems in place to
reprimand those that choose to act against its citizens. The
government also has laws in place that stop those who are
unfit to own weapons from purchasing them. Felons, drug
addicts, and the mentally ill are a few that the government
sees unfit to have the right to purchase or possess a gun.
While the citizens of the United States do have a right to
bear arms under the Second Amendment, their basic right
to life must still be protected by adding stipulations to who is
eligible to own arms.

There are many laws in place in order to keep the gun
buying process as safe as possible for everyone involved.
The Supreme Court case Abramski v. United States is an
instance where the government has decided to uphold certain
requirements in order to keep its citizens safe. In Abramski v.
United States the petitioner, Bruce Abramski, offered to buy a
handgun for his uncle. On the form that Abramski was required
to fill out during the purchase of a gun he was asked whether
he was the true buyer or simply purchasing the gun on behalf
of someone else. The form had an example of what a true
buyer was and even a bolded warning that stated, “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.” Abramski was
clearly aware of what he was doing when he listed himself
as the true buyer of the firearm with full knowledge that the
ownership of the gun would be transferred to his uncle upon
the completion of the transaction. The question is whether or
not gun buyers are required to disclose that they are making
their purchase for someone else even if both the straw buyer
and the real buyer are eligible to own guns. The United
States Supreme Court made a 5-4 decision that allowed
prosecution under federal law that does require a straw buyer
to disclose their status as such. The Supreme Court held that
Abramski’s misrepresentation is material under §922(a) (6).
While Abramski tries to oppose this by saying that the sale

26 THE ATLANTA LAWYER

August/September 2014

is legal simply because the person at the counter is eligible
to own a gun that is not true. The person at the counter, or
the straw buyer, may be allowed to buy a gun but that does
not make the transaction legal if the gun will be passed on
to a second party unknown to the firearms dealer. During
the purchase of a gun the buyer is required to go through a
system of in-person identification and background checks
to make sure that the firearms are not falling into the wrong
hands. If the person who is at the counter is not the person
that will have ownership of the gun then the security checks
are not able to serve their intended purpose. While in this
case the actual buyer was legally allowed to own a gun, the
straw buyer’s status should have still been revealed because
once again no information will be taken of the actual buyer
if someone else is at the counter to buy the gun for them.
The lack of information could prove to be problematic if the
true buyer chooses to commit some sort of crime with the
firearm because no information would exist that connects the
firearm to the person that owns the gun. There would only
be record of the person who bought the gun as a stand in

The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association