Dirt haul on SR 89 between Prescott and Chino Valley scheduled this week

Traffic on State Route 89 between Prescott and Chino Valley (mileposts 320 to 322) will be required to stop intermittently this week to allow trucks to safely cross the highway.

The hauling operation will take place from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. Monday and Tuesday, June 16-17, with intermittent closures for dirt hauling. Drivers can expect delays of up to 15 minutes at a time.

The work zone will be clearly marked by temporary barricades and signage. ADOT advises drivers to allow additional time to reach their destinations and to proceed through the work zone with caution, comply with the reduced speed limit, and be alert for construction equipment and personnel.

Wildland Fire in Oak Creek Canyon Results in Mandatory Evacuations in the Junipine Area

OAK CREEK CANYON – A wildland fire in Oak Creek Canyon has resulted in the partial closure of State Route 89A. The Junipine Lodge and the residential neighborhood in the immediate area of the lodge have been placed under a mandatory evacuation order. Residents located in Oak Creek Canyon north of Junipine to the bottom of the switchbacks have been given a pre-evacuation notification. Approximately 40 individuals have left their homes located in Junipine. The American Red Cross has established an evacuee reception center at Sinagua Middle School located at 3950 East Butler Avenue in Flagstaff. Evacuated pets can be taken to the Coconino County Humane Shelter located at 3501 East Butler Avenue.

Abramski conviction upheld by Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON D.C. – The Supreme Court decided in the case of Abramski v. United States (PDF) that straw purchases—such as those orchestrated by the Eric Holder BATFE for Operation Fast and Furious which took the life of Arizona Border Patrol agent Brian Terry—are illegal. The 5-4 decision was split along party line with Justice Kennedy again being the swing vote.

Mike Gangloff of the The Roanake Times in Virginia wrote a detail account in December of 2010 on the background of Bruce Abramski, Jr.—the defendant in the case. The basic line is that Abramski purchased a Glock 19 fully intending to transfer the weapon to his uncle in Pennsylvania for cash. He purchased the weapon using a police discount on an identification he held after he was released by the police department two years earlier. They transferred the weapon using the background check required by law which revealed that his uncle was legally eligible to receive the weapon.

Abramski was charged with lying on line 11a of ATF Form 4473 which is a felony under United State Code 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). He checked the box indicating that he was the purchaser of the weapon. He was sentenced to probation instead of the ten-years imprisonment he faced. He maintains a felony conviction, however.

atf-4473-question11a

The problem in the case was what constitutes a “straw purchase.” In essence a straw purchase is when a straw purchases a weapon for another person using the intended receivers money even if both are eligible to purchase firearms. This apparently does not apply to a person purchasing a firearm as a bona fide gift.

In a January article on Guns.com NRA Spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen told them via email:

This is another case of the BATFE attempting to criminalize the legal activity of law-abiding gun owners. In this case, both the buyer and his uncle submitted to and passed the requisite background checks to own the firearm in question. Congress did not criminalize the transfer of firearms between persons who are both legally entitled to purchase the firearm. Rather, Congress’ objective was to prevent individuals from purchasing firearms on behalf of prohibited persons and that is – in fact – what the law provides.

Justice Kagan, writing the decision for the majority, stated:

Abramski also challenges his §922(a)(6) conviction on a narrower ground. For purposes of this argument, he assumes that the Government can make its case when a straw hides the name of an underlying purchaser who is legally ineligible to own a gun. But, Abramski reminds us, that is not true here, because Alvarez could have bought a gun for himself. In such circumstances, Abramski claims that a false response to Question 11.a. is not material. … Essentially, Abramski contends, when the hidden purchaser is eligible anyway to own a gun, all’s well that ends well, and all should be forgiven.

But we think what we have already said shows the fallacy of that claim: Abramski’s false statement was material because had he revealed that he was purchasing the gun on Alvarez’s behalf, the sale could not have proceeded under the law—even though Alvarez turned out to be an eligible gun owner.

If the dealer here, Town Police Supply, had realized it was in fact selling a gun to Alvarez, it would have had to stop the transaction for failure to comply with those conditions. Yet more, the sale could not have gone forward because the dealer would have lacked the information needed to verify and record Alvarez’s identity and check his background.

The dissenters made the argument that this particular purchase constituted a gift more than a straw purchase. This decision seems to keep in tact the provision that a person can purchase a weapon as a gift for another—provided both are legally eligible to possess firearms. A husband can purchase a weapon for his wife as a gift, for example, provided that he knows that she is legally allowed to own firearms. This does not necessarily mean a felony conviction, but if the receiver has certain mental instability, drug abuse problems or the like, they may not be legally allowed to possess firearms.

See also: Federal Firearms “Cheatsheet” PDF