In the case of Abramski v. United States, Bruce James Abramski Jr., a former police officer, purchased a firearm for his uncle from a licensed dealer while falsely asserting that he was the actual buyer. His uncle had provided him with money to buy the gun and reimbursed him after purchase. The federal law prohibits making false statements related to firearms' acquisition from federally licensed dealers and makes it illegal for anyone but actual buyers to fill out required paperwork when purchasing guns. Abramski argued that since both he and his uncle were legally eligible to own guns, no law was violated. However, the Supreme Court disagreed in its 5-4 ruling against Abramski stating that such "straw purchases" are indeed illegal under federal law even if both parties involved can legally own guns. The court held that lying on forms used by federal authorities during gun sales is unlawful because it undermines their ability to trace firearms used in crimes or sold illegally later on.

In the dissenting opinion for ABRAMSKI v. UNITED STATES, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of federal gun law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Congress intended to target only transactions where ultimate recipients were not allowed to own guns, rather than all cases where a third party buys a gun on behalf of someone else. The language in question prohibits false statements "likely to deceive" firearms dealers about "lawful" sales – which he interpreted as referring specifically to whether or not the end recipient is legally permitted to possess a firearm, not who physically makes the purchase at the store. Thus, since Abramski’s uncle was eligible to own firearms under federal law, Scalia believed there should be no violation even if Abramski lied about being actual buyer on his form.