Should 'Straw' Purchasers Be Able to Buy Guns?

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that gun purchasers will have to disclose for whom they are buying a firearm. The court held that “straw” purchasers, or buyers who are not the final gun owner, must indicate the intended owner on federal forms, even if both are legally allowed to own guns.
Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan argued that to allow straw gun buyers would be to undermine the entire purchasing system. “The twin goals of this comprehensive scheme are to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them, and to assist law enforcement authorities in investigating serious crimes,” Kagan wrote. “And no part of that scheme would work if the statute turned a blind eye to straw purchases.”
Bruce Abramski, a former police officer, brought the case after a grand jury indicted him for claiming he was the “actual transferee/buyer” of a Glock 19 handgun intended for his uncle. He also signed a form acknowledging that falsely claiming ultimate ownership was a federal crime, notes Kagan. 
Abramski, however, argued that he was not violating the law because his uncle was legally allowed to own a gun. “[The straw purchaser doctrine] certainly cannot apply where a gun buyer purchases a firearm for another lawful buyer,” wrote Ambramski’s attorneys. “In that circumstance, the underlying rationale for the doctrine — preventing guns from falling into the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them — does not apply.”
[SEE: Cartoons on Gun Control and Gun Rights]
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented with the court’s opinion. The majority, said Scalia, is applying the straw doctrine to a case it wasn’t meant to address — one where both Abramski and his uncle were legally allowed to have guns. The court “interprets this criminal statute to punish conduct that its plain language simply does not reach,” wrote Scalia.
The National Rifle Association agreed. In a brief, NRA attorneys insisted that the question Abramski answered falsely was meant to “criminalize the legal transfer of firearms between non-prohibited persons.” Rather, by including such a question, the NRA says the federal government oversteps the intent of the straw purchase law: to penalize third parties for buying guns with the intent to resell them illegally or to criminals.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the ruling was a big victory for gun safety. “Once again the Supreme Court rejected efforts by the corporate gun lobby to undermine federal gun laws, reaffirming that sensible laws can have a big impact while being consistent with the Second Amendment,” he said in a statement.
So what do you think? Was the Supreme Court right to rule against straw purchasers? Vote and comment below.