The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2014 | Page 30

SLIP Student Essays
Abramski v. United States
By Rachelle Jacques
Dutchtown High School, interned
with United Parcel Service

T

here are two aspects of the law that I believe are
most impactful on court decisions and cause the most
controversy or division within the courts: interpretation
and intent. In the majority of cases, those two factors
ultimately determine the decision on which party to favor. In
a particular United States Supreme Court case, Abramski v.
United States, we see how specific interpretation and intent
of the law allows the avenue for dissenting opinions and in
this particular instance, cause the decision to be split in a 5-4
vote. Furthermore, with the analysis of the Abramski case,
it will be evident how important detailed scrutiny is when
interrupting and finding intent of the law.
Toward the end of the year 2009, Bruce Abramski, former
police officer, offered to purchase a gun for his uncle. Both
Abramski and his uncle are legally eligible to buy a gun, but
in this particular situation Abramski is the one who decided
to buy the gun on behalf of his uncle. Upon buying the gun,
Abramski made sure to fill out the proper paperwork in order
to complete the gun purchase. Form 4473 is the specific form
that Abramski was required to complete and mentioned in this
procedure was that a straw purchaser, one who is purchasing
a firearm on behalf of another, is not the actual buyer.
Consciously ignoring the classification that was previously
mentioned, Abramski continued the completion of the form
and made the false claim that he was the actual buyer of the
firearm. After the completion of the transaction, Abramski
delivered the gun to his uncle. Later, Abramski was convicted
for violating the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §922(a)
(6) and 18 U.S.C. §924(a)(1)(A) because of the false claim
on the Form 4473 that he was the actual buyer, which made
his transaction unlawful.
When the case was taken to the Supreme Court in 2014,
Abramski argued that because both he and his uncle are
eligible to buy a gun, his false representation was not material
to the lawfulness of the transaction. His argument stood on
the basis that if he and his uncle were capable of making
the transaction, the actual buyer should not be relevant.
Justice Kagan delivered the opinion that affirmed Abramski’s
conviction and held that Abramski’s false representation
violates 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(6) because his false claim to be
the actual buyer is material to the lawful nature of buying the
firearm. Moreo ٕȰ