The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2014 | Page 29

SLIP Student Essays
referred to in these statutes is important because if the identity
of the final purchaser is not disclosed, criminals could have
easier access to firearms. Disclosing the identity of the true/
actual buyer allows the statutes to accomplish their objectives.
The information requested of the ATF form is relevant to the
lawfulness of the sale for the reasons given above. Abramski
disregarded essentially all the firearm law’s requirements
and violated §922(a)(6). The majority opinion concerning
the information kept on file stated that Abramski did, in fact,
violate §924(a)(1)(A) by making a false statement regarding
information that was to be kept on file.
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Scalia, was joined
by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito.
Regarding the lawfulness of the sale, Justice Scalia rejects
the majority opinion’s determination of the final recipient as
the person referenced by the Gun Control Act. The dissenting
opinion argues that though the majority opinion presents
a reasonable statute, the statute is not the one Congress
wrote. For a statute that already contains so many loopholes,
what makes one concerning the identity of the final buyer
any different? The purpose of the Act was not absolute.
Because of the ambiguity, the dissenting opinion sides with
the defendant. Regarding the information kept on file, the
statute does not punish misstatements. Regardless of this,
the information on that form concerning Abramski’s status

M&DCP
Celebrates

as the straw purchaser” was not required to be kept. Again,
because of this ambiguity, the dissenting opinion sides with
the defendant.
With regards to Abramski v. United States, I agree with the
dissenting opinion. The person referred to in the Gun Control
Act could have been the person at the counter (straw buyer)
or the final recipient of the firearm (real buyer). Because of
the confusion concerning the identity of the buyer, Abramski
could be said to have made a misstatement rather than a false,
material statement. I believe that because of the ambiguity of
the terms in the Gun Control Act, Abramski should not have
been prosecuted for this crime.
In conclusion, Abramski v. United States concerns the
lawfulness of a firearm sale and the information concerning
the firearm sale to be kept on file. The majority opinion stated
the sale was unlawful and that a false, material statement
was made concerning the information to be kept on file. The
dissenting opinion stated that the sale was lawful and that
a misstatement, unable to be punished by the statute, was
made concerning the information to be kept on file. Because
of the ambiguity of the identity of the final buyer referenced in
the Gun Control Act, I agree with the dissenting opinion and
side with the defendant.

30

Years

The Atlanta Bar Association Minority & Diversity Clerkship Program
was established in 1985 and offers law firm clerkships for minority
and diverse 1L students attending the five accredited Georgia
law schools. Learn more.
The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association

August/September 2014

THE ATLANTA LAWYER

29