Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Naturally, I favor the dissent in the Abramski straw-buyer gun case. This section caught my eye:
That Abramski’s reading does not render the Act’s requirements “meaningless” is further evidenced by the fact that, for decades, even ATF itself did not read the statute to criminalize conduct like Abramski’s. After Congress passed the Act in 1968, ATF’s initial position was that the Act did not prohibit the sale of a gun to an eligible buyer acting on behalf of a third party (even an ineligible one). See Hearings Before the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 118 (1975).A few years later, ATF modified its position and asserted that the Act did not “prohibit a dealer from making a sale to a person who is actually purchasing the firearm for another person” unless the other person was “prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm,” in which case the dealer could be guilty of “unlawfully aiding the prohibited person’s own violation.” ATF, Industry Circular 79–10(1979), in (Your Guide To) Federal Firearms Regulation1988–89 (1988), p. 78. The agency appears not to have adopted its current position until the early 1990’s. See United States v. Polk, 118 F. 3d 286, 295, n. 7 (CA5 1997).
The majority deems this enforcement history “not relevant” because the Government’s reading of a criminal statute is not entitled to deference. Ante, at 22. But the fact that the agency charged with enforcing the Act read it, over a period of roughly 25 years, not to apply to the type of conduct at issue here is powerful evidence that interpreting the Act in that way is natural and reasonable and does not make its requirements “meaningless.”
“Even if the statute were wrongly thought to be ambiguous on this point, the rule of lenity would defeat the Government’s construction. It is a “familiar principle” that “‘ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.’” Skilling v. United States, 561 U. S. 358, 410 (2010). That principle prevents us from giving the words of a criminal statute “a meaning that is different from [their] ordinary, accepted meaning, and that disfavors the defendant.” Burrage v.United States, 571 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 12). And it means that when a criminal statute has two possible readings, we do not “‘choose the harsher alternative’” unless Congress has “‘spoken in language that is clear and definite.’” United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347–349 (1971). For the reasons given above, it cannot be said that the statute unambiguously commands the Government’s current reading. It is especially contrary to sound practice to give this criminal statute a meaning that the Government itself rejected for years.”
I wasn’t aware the government had reversed its interpretation of the statute and I never heard of a rule of lenity. But the dissent makes sense to me.
Joe Doakes
Further proof that:
- We have too many laws
- The fact that our laws are enforced, not enforced, or overeenforced at the discretion of government according to political priorities is a sign that your government is becoming more lawless, and merely turning into the gang with the coolest guns.
Time to fix both.
That is a sign of a totalitarian gov’t. Not that we are totally there yet, but…….you create so many laws, that it is impossible to not be in violation of something. You create conflicting laws and regulations, so if you take one action, you violate a law. If you take an opposite action, you violate a different law. Then the gov’t selectively picks out which laws to enforce against certain people or organizations that they want to destroy.
Also the gov’t passes laws that are vague, leaving it up to a prosecutor to what it really means. This is how the Democrats are going after Governor Walker for committing the crime of using the first amendment to talk to people. Or have laws that say things like “the secretary may……..”.
The section on law in Kevin Williamson’s book is really disturbing.
I agree with Chuck that some laws are vaguely written. That’s wrong, as the law should be understandable by the population expected to follow it. However, in the absence of understandability, it should be up to a judge to ultimately determine its interpretation and the subsequent degree of culpability, if any, of the accused.
This situation applies to an earlier discussion here of law enforcement by choice of law; the president’s alleged ignoring laws he did not like and coming down with a vengeance on others he did. Regarding that issue, I think the belief was that laws should be enforced equally and impartiality regardless of desirability.
In this case, the guy was clearly guilty of the letter of the law. “Don’t buy for the other guy” has been preached for years, and the answering of “yes” to the end user question clearly meant you were buying the gun for yourself. There has been no ambiguity about that in gun circles. Does that mean that you’re automatically an Eric Holder-style gun runner if you grab a gun for your brother-in-law? No. However, you are guilty of a violation of the law’s letter.
In the usually rare cases of someone getting caught, it should be up to a judge to determine what penalty, if any, applies. I think this guy got probation. Was he guilty? Yes. Did he think he was guilty? No (or he’d have kept his mouth shut). Still, those in the world of firearms, like the NRA, who demand that current gun laws be enforced before enacting any new, ones got their wish. Hopefully the conditions of the guy’s conviction are lenient. At least he isn’t getting locked up.
In comparison, many people want road and driving laws enforced – nail the idiot 17 YOA kid who passes my house doing 60mph in a 30mph zone. How about 55mph? 50mph? How about your 17 YOA daughter doing 31mph? All are black and white guilty, but if you want enforcement, hopefully you will get it. Just be careful what you wish for and hope that the judiciary will even out the bumps.