Abramski v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawFirearms RegulationStatutory InterpretationCriminal Lawstraw purchaseractual buyerForm 4473materiality

Facts

Bruce Abramski agreed to buy a Glock 19 handgun for his uncle, Angel Alvarez, who sent him a $400 check marked for that gun. At the federally licensed dealer, Abramski completed ATF Form 4473 and falsely answered "Yes" to the question asking whether he was the "actual transferee/buyer," even though he was purchasing the gun on Alvarez's behalf. After Abramski passed the background check, the dealer sold him the gun, and Abramski later transferred it to Alvarez and obtained a receipt. Federal agents later found that receipt while searching Abramski's home in connection with another investigation.

Issue

Whether a person who buys a firearm from a licensed dealer on behalf of another person, while falsely stating on Form 4473 that he is the actual buyer, makes a false statement material to the lawfulness of the sale under 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(6). Also, whether that false statement concerns information required by Chapter 44 to be kept in a dealer's records under §924(a)(1)(A).

Rule

For purposes of federal firearms dealer regulations, the relevant purchaser is the actual buyer, not a straw intermediary. Therefore, a false statement concealing that the person at the counter is buying on behalf of another is material to the lawfulness of the sale under §922(a)(6), even if the true buyer could legally have purchased the gun himself, because the dealer's statutory duties of in-person appearance, identification, background check, and recordkeeping apply to the true buyer. A false answer on Form 4473 also violates §924(a)(1)(A) when the form is required by regulations issued under Chapter 44 to be retained in the dealer's records.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nate Porter agreed to buy a pistol from a federally licensed dealer for his cousin, Eric Sloan. Eric mailed Nate the exact purchase price in advance, and Nate answered "Yes" on Form 4473 to the question asking whether he was the actual transferee/buyer. Eric could lawfully have bought the pistol himself.

If Nate is prosecuted for making a false statement material to the lawfulness of the sale, what is the strongest basis for conviction?

Explanation. The majority held that in dealer sales, the relevant buyer is the actual purchaser, not the straw intermediary. A lie concealing that the person at the counter is buying on behalf of another is material under §922(a)(6) even if the true buyer is legally eligible, because the dealer must identify, verify, and run the background check on the real buyer.