The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2014 | Page 28

SLIP Student Essays
Abramski v. United States
By Mary Elizabeth Burke
Wesleyan School, Interned with
Linley Jones, P.C.

I

n the fall of 2009, Bruce Abramski purchased a handgun
for his uncle. Abramski, who was once a police officer,
received a discount on the purchase. When making the
purchase, Abramski stated he was the actual buyer of the
gun by filling out a form for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms. He later transferred the
gun, with a licensed dealer, to his uncle,
in Pennsylvania. Abramski, in 2010, was
arrested on suspicion of robbing a bank.
While investigating his potential role in the
robbery, the police found documentation
of the gun transfer. Abramski was then
charged with a violation of federal law
by making a false, material statement on
the form. A grand jury indicted him later.
Abramski tried to dismiss this indictment,
arguing that the firearm was legally
transferred and that his Fourth Amendment
rights had been violated as the police did
not have a proper warrant for the search
from which the documentation of transfer
was generated. His motion for dismissal
was denied because he withheld a material
fact while purchasing a firearm. Abramski
entered a conditional guilty plea as part of
a plea bargain; the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Kagan, was joined
by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
Regarding the lawfulness of the sale, the majority opinion
stated that the final purchaser of the gun is the person
described in the relevant statutes. The identity of the person

This case brings two important questions
up for Supreme Court discussion. The first
question regards the lawfulness of the sale:
does the Gun Control Act of 1968 forbid
purchases of firearms, regardless of the
lawfulness of both buyers? The second
question regards the information kept on
file: is the identity of the actual buyer a fact
material to the sale of the firearm? These
questions were answered with the Court’s
holding, a 5-4 decision, which determined
that federal law requires gun buyers to
disclose that they are making their purchase
for somebody else, even if both the straw
buyer and the real one are eligible to own
guns.

28 THE ATLANTA LAWYER

August/September 2014

The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association