The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2014 | Page 31

SLIP Student Essays
violation of the federal laws previously stated and the proper
justification that Abramski’s conviction was affirmed by the
United States Supreme Court. However, this decision was
not unanimous. In fact the controversy among the justices
was split in a 5-4 vote; a dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia
was filed along with the majority opinion.
In the dissenting opinion of this court decision, the Justice
Scalia poses two interesting arguments. The first position
that the Justice take is that the misrepresentation of Abramski
was not material to the gun transaction because of who
Abramski was buying the firearm for, his uncle. It is the fact
that Abramski’s uncle is also eligible to purchase firearms
that justifies why, in the dissenting opinion, the false claim
on Abramski’s form should not be relevant or material to the
transaction. Abramski’s uncle could have brought the firearm
himself and the transaction would have been approved;
therefore, on the basis that more Abramski and his uncle
are eligible to purchase firearms, Justice Scalia believe the
misrepresentation should not have been material to the lawful
nature of the purchase. Furthermore, if the indication of the
actual buyer is not material to the gun purchase, there would
be not in violation of the 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(6).
The second argument that Justice Scalia expressed in the
dissenting opinion relates to both applied provision, but
deals directly with interpretation of the word ‘buyer’. It is the
language of the law that Justice Scalia notices the ambiguity
of how to handle the situation. To address this ambiguity,
Justice Scalia takes heed to the definition of a buyer. The
idea of who the buyer is the basis of the conviction in this
case; therefore, Justice Scalia was sure to carefully study
the concept of the buyer in this situation.
As a result, Justice Scalia concluded that
because of the lack of direct address to a
specific buyer, the buyer should then be
addressed as whoever the product was
sold directly to from the seller. Under this
interpretation of the word ‘buyer’ Abramski
would be considered the actual buyer.
Furthermore, he would not be in violation
of any of the provisions applied to this case
because Abramski would be considered the
buyer of the firearm. The interpretation of
just the one word, buyer, was the standing
to the dissenting view. Justice Scalia, Chief
Justice John Roberts, Justice Thomas and
Justice Alito in accordance to the dissenting
opinion believe that Abramski should not
have been convicted because as the ‘buyer’
he did not violate any federal laws.
After reviewing and analyzing the details
of the case, I have found that I do agree
with the final decision of the court that Mr.
The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association

Abramski violated the 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(6) on the premise
that his action of falsely identifying himself as the actual buyer,
kno