A police officer named Bruce Abramski wanted to purchase a firearm for a relative since officers recieve a discount. While filing out the form 4473, Abramski marked that he was purchasing the firearm for himself. Both he and his uncle were not prohibited persons and both men passed a NICS background check. A few months after the purchase, Abramski was arrested on suspcion of bank robbery and the police found evidence indicating he transfered the firearm to his relative in violation of the so-called "straw purchase" rule. This term and statue was created by the ATF and the courts, not an Act of Congress. If it was a crime, then why were members of Congress attempting to pass a law which prohibited Abramski's actions? Additionally, Abramski consulted with two licensed firearm dealers and both agreed his actions were not in violation of the law. Yet the ATF argued Abramski was “intended or likely to deceive” the FFL he purchased the firearm from. GOF and GOA filed an amicus brief in this case because allowing ATF’s definition of a “straw purchase” is arbitrary and unworkable, since it exempts “gifts” bought with the transferee’s money, but not purchases made with the alleged “actual buyer’s” money. It's worth noting this is the second brief that we filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in this case. On July 25, 2013, we filed an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court granting certiorari in this case — one of only two filed in support of granting Mr. Abramski’s petition.