The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2014 | Page 34
SLIP Student Essays
Abramski vs. United States
By Korey Silas
Decatur High School, Interned
with Gideon’s Promise
I
n the case of Abramski vs. United States the facts are
simple. Bruce Abramski attempted to make a strawpurchase of a firearm for his uncle, a Mr. Angel Alvarez.
During the process of making the straw-purchase, Bruce
Abramski knowingly, falsely answered legal documents
making reference as to whether or not Mr. Abramski was
indeed the actual buyer. Mr. Abramski falsely answered
question 11a – on the form that federal regulations required
Mr. Abramski to fill out, indicating that he was indeed the
actual buyer, while knowing that he was instead making a
straw-purchase for his uncle. The form included warnings
that informed Mr. Abramski that he was not the actual buyer
of the firearm. Mr. Abramski was later convicted of knowingly
making false statements in regards to the sale of a gun. Mr.
Abramski argued that question 11a was irrelevant to the sale
of the gun, because his uncle was in fact legally eligible to
purchase the gun for himself. Mr. Abramski also argued that
he was indeed the actual buyer, because he argued that the
statute referring to the “actual buyer” references the person
at the counter making the purchase, rather than, in this case,
his uncle.
Justice Elena Kagan delivered the majority opinion on this
case. In the case, the majority decision upholds Mr. Abramski’s
conviction. The reasons for the decision made by the Court
lie primarily in the realm of public safety and partially in the
realm of discerning phrase meaning. The Court explains the
implications if Mr. Abramski’s findings were to be upheld.
Mr. Abramski’s reasoning holds dire and severe potential
consequences for the public. Mr. Abramski’s reasoning
attacks the meaning of the term “actual buyer”. Mr. Abramski’s
perspective on the term is that actual buyer refers to the
person buying the gun at the counter, rather than ultimate
buyer who is supplying the funds and intended to receive the
purchased firearm.
Mr. Abramski’s reasoning attacks two important g