Meh... even a dream-team SCOTUS packed with Thomas clones might not have ruled in favor of us on this one.
Considering the broad use of the ICC was upheld because "Grain grown in a state, sold in a state, and consumed all entirely within a state still affects grain that might have been grown, sold, and
might be consumed in other states" etc. I don't see the "straw purchase whether or not the other person is able to pass NICS" going away unless GCA '68 and the whole FFL system and everything that came with on the 4473 form is stricken. That's a pretty simple clear reading of the law, and I don't see some broader constitutional challenge to GCA '68 or any ammendments made thereafter being made.
Nothing in the statute suggests that these legal duties may be wiped away merely because the actual buyer turns out to be legally eligible to own a gun. Because the dealer could not have lawfully sold the gun had it known that Abramski was not the true buyer, the misstatement was material to the lawfulness of the sale.
Even the dissent in the footnotes seems to be playing games parsing the meanings of "sell" and "buyer" in the English language.
Kind of surprised the whole case reached the SCOTUS, because to my reading the whole argument falls down to, "GCA '68, NICS, and the 4473 doesn't apply because neither of us were criminals or prohibited persons and
because uh reasons..."
While I guess I'd like to see fed.gov control over firearms ever loosened every time it's challenged, it seems to me that the thrust of the case was Abramski was asking for various parts of 922(xyz) in the CFR to not say what they say.
