C&R to C&R sale legality


PDA






Novus Collectus
August 6, 2007, 09:22 PM
I was wondering since the ATF says that a same state resident 03 licensee to 03 licensee sale of C&Rs (if legal in their own state) is not subject to the Brady law, would a purchase of a C&R made for another licensee be considered a "straw purchase"? (P11) Does the Brady law apply to the transfer of firearms between two licensees? [Back]

No. The Brady law only applies when a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer is transferring a firearm to a non-licensee.


(P12) Must licensed collectors comply with the Brady law prior to transferring a curio or relic firearm? [Back]

No. Transfers of curio or relic firearms by licensed collectors are not subject to the requirements of the Brady law.


(P13) Is the transfer of a firearm by a licensed dealer to a licensed collector subject to the Brady law? [Back]

The Brady law does not apply to the transfer of a curio or relic firearm to a licensed collector. However, a licensed collector who acquires a firearm other than a curio or relic from a licensee would be treated like a non-licensee, and the transfer would be subject to Brady requirements.
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#p12

The reason I ask is because of some three C&R rifle deals some distributors have, or a multiple purchase to save on shipping. Now this would not fall under dealing since it would be a sale not for profit: What does "engaged in business" mean?

The term "engaged in business," as applicable to a firearms dealer, is defined as a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/curios/faq.htm

I assume there could also a difference if the other dealers gave the money before the purchase instead of one peson buying all three and later selling them to the other collectors, but the intent would still be there if that was the reason for the purchase. So if it is considered a straw purchase for a licensee to purchase for another licensee, then I could see it applying either way.

This is what I think, if an 01 FFL can purchase a gun for another 01 or even an 03 FFL and then transfer to them by recording in their bound books, then why would a C&R purchase made by one 03 FFL for another 03 licensee be any different if not for profit?

(I asked a mod if it was ok to start this legal question thread in this forum)

If you enjoyed reading about "C&R to C&R sale legality" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SaxonPig
August 6, 2007, 09:57 PM
A straw purchase is when someone legally able to buy a gun does so on behalf of an actual end user who is prohibited. If everyone involved has an FFL (even C&R) then nobody is prohibited and this would not be considered a straw purchase.

However, the ATF makes it clear (by repeating about 1,000 times per page) that a C&R is a license for personal collecting. So technically you should only be buying what you intend to collect. But many C&R holders will buy multiple units, select the best of the lot, and sell off the rest. Apparently this is tolerated by the ATF as long as it doesn't become obvious that it's being done to turn a profit. If the buyer of the unwanted units also has a C&R and you are merely selling unwanted items then there is certainly no problem at all.

Niner
August 6, 2007, 10:03 PM
Seems to me that what you are talking about is making a group purchase among C&R licensed collectors. If I were going to be the one making the purchase, I'd do it and put it in my book as making all the purchases and then making the transfer with the date, name and address, license number, dob, and drivers license number of those I transfer the weapons to being recorded.

But...you can always call the local Batf and get an opinion first.

joab
August 6, 2007, 10:05 PM
A straw purchase is when someone legally able to buy a gun does so on behalf of an actual end user who is prohibited.No it is not
As explained on the back of form 4473
A straw purchase is when you purchase a firearm for someone using other than your own money, period

As far as the C&R licensees go
It is pretty much common practice to buy multiple guns, keep the best a sell off the rest.
Sometimes leaving you with a free or almost free gun

When selling between C&Rs you still have to record the sell with their DL if within the same state

If you are selling to make a living instead to enhance you collection then you need an 01

Novus Collectus
August 6, 2007, 10:19 PM
But this would be a group purchase among licensees using one license for the interstate transfer. The rifles would be bought with the intent of either selling to someone in particular (licensee), or by using another licensee's money to buy for them.

The arrangement would be made on a public forum, so obeying the law for moral reasons aside, it would be foolish break it publicly with plently of accessible electronic evidence so obviosuly obtainable.
I wish there was a good way to know the answer of legality without having to wait on hold forever calling the Baltimore ATF field office.

Novus Collectus
August 6, 2007, 10:24 PM
Niner, I hear ya.

By the way, if it is a C&R to C&R FFL transfer, the FFL license number has to be recorded, not the driver's license.

Niner
August 6, 2007, 10:33 PM
I said that....didn't I? Guess I didn't make clear what the first "license" was.:D

I'd do it and put it in my book as making all the purchases and then making the transfer with the date, name and address, license number, dob, and drivers license number of those I transfer

Novus Collectus
August 6, 2007, 10:56 PM
I meant you don't need both :)
I should have said "just the FFL license bumber is required" when dealing with an FFL.

DMK
August 6, 2007, 11:06 PM
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ffrrg/transcripts/ltfour.htm
Generally, the straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is not eligible to conduct a transaction because he or she is a felon or other prohibited person. However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case.There is no Form 4473 when an FFL purchases a firearm.

Novus Collectus
August 6, 2007, 11:10 PM
There is no Form 4473 when an FFL purchases a firearm. That is how I see it too, but is there any grey area of the law pertaining to such a scenario, or other applicability of a law to such a situation we are not aware of? I doubt there is, but I would hate to do something that got a few other fellow gun owners in trouble along with me.

joab
August 6, 2007, 11:14 PM
By the way, if it is a C&R to C&R FFL transfer, the FFL license number has to be recorded, not the driver's license.


Face to face or in state sales require only a DL
The C&R allows you to ship interstate to another licensee

It's up to the buyer to keep his book up,not me
I only have to log it out of my book to an identifiable person

Novus Collectus
August 6, 2007, 11:48 PM
Face to face or in state sales require only a DL
The C&R allows you to ship interstate to another licensee

It's up to the buyer to keep his book up,not me
I only have to log it out of my book to an identifiable personThat is what I used to think till someone pointed this out to me:



178.125 Record of receipt and disposition (f) Firearms receipt and disposition by licensed collectors. Each licensed collector shall enter into a record each receipt and disposition of firearms curios or relics. The record required by this paragraph shall be maintained in bound form under the format prescribed below. The purchase or other acquisition of a curio or relic shall, except as provided in [ 27 C.F.R 178.125] (g) of this section, be recorded not later than the close of the next business day following the date of such purchase or other acquisition. The record shall show the date of receipt, the name and address or the name and license number of the person from whom received, the name of the manufacturer and importer (if any), the model, serial number, type, and the caliber or gauge of the firearm curio or relic. The sale or other disposition of a curio or relic shall be recorded by the licensed collector not later than 7 days following the date of such transaction. When such disposition is made to a licensee, the commercial record of the transaction shall be retained, until the transaction is recorded, separate from other commercial documents maintained by the licensee, and be readily available for inspection. The record shall show the date of the sale or other disposition of each firearm curio or relic, the name and address of the person to whom the firearm curio or relic is transferred, or the name and license number of the person to whom transferred if such person is a licensee, http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/curios/intro.htm

joab
August 7, 2007, 01:24 AM
There is a few of us in trouble down Fla way
But then again I never asked if they were actually C&R holders

Novus Collectus
August 7, 2007, 01:31 AM
They didn't tell you then how can you be held accountable, right?

FieroCDSP
August 7, 2007, 01:42 AM
If several C&R's get together some money and buy eligible guns at a group buy price, and everyone gets their guns for the same price, just saving a bit on shipping, then it's a group buy and not reselling. Therefore all you're doing is saving on the original costs and maybe shipping, and it is neither a straw purchase, nor reselling. BATFE might have a different view, but if they do, they're dumb. All you're doing is recieving them from the selling FFL, and transfering them to other 03 FFL's at no cost(because they already paid for them to the original seller). I'm no lawyer or BATFE expert, so you might want to check with the field office anyway.

SaxonPig
August 7, 2007, 10:59 AM
joab-

The fact that there is always so much debate and disagreement over gun laws shows that they are confusing and too complex. The laws are written by over-officious bureaucrats and the ATF is really bad about having conflicting regulations. But in the case of straw purchases, the key element is the intent to get around the law and provide a gun to a prohibited person.

I think the statement about “using money not your own” is just a simplified explanation that really doesn’t go to the heart of the issue, which is, as I said, buying a gun on behalf of a disqualified person. You need the criminal intent in order to be breaking the law and the criminal intent in the straw purchase is to get around the prohibition for disqualified buyers. It is possible, and I cite an example at the end of this commentary, to buy a gun with someone else’s money without criminal intent.

Rather than trying to understand the mumbo-jumbo put out by the ATF, read what the federal prosecutors say about the law. It is they who decide whether to prosecute and they have some clear ideas about what constitutes a straw purchase. Here is a quote from a U.S. attorney on what constitutes a straw purchase. Note that no mention is made about whose money is used. It’s the intent to deliver the gun to a disqualified person that is the illegal act.

"'Don't lie for the other guy' says it all," said U.S. Attorney Charlton. "If you're buying a firearm for someone who can't buy one on their own - you'll go to prison. Licensed firearms dealers cannot sell guns to people who are prohibited from possessing them."

Charlton added: "Often, people who are prohibited from owning guns try and get around the law by having friends or relatives purchase the guns for them. This is a straw purchase. Illegal firearms traffickers often use straw purchasers to buy guns for them so their own name is not recorded in gun store records. Then they resell these guns to criminals. So when a person is asked to buy a gun for someone else they must understand that they are being asked to commit a federal felony. When a person makes a straw purchase, they are not just risking prison time; they are arming gang members, felons, and illegal aliens. These offenses will not be tolerated in the District of Arizona."

Another U.S. attorney statement regarding straw purchases.

According to the indictment, and facts admitted by Stacy Day, she purchased several firearms for a convicted felon. Under federal law, convicted felons cannot possess firearms. Nevertheless, convicted felons often recruit "straw purchasers" to acquire firearms on their behalf. "Straw purchasers," however, often disregard their own criminal liability for lying on their application to buy firearms.

United States Attorney Canary stated: "It is a serious federal crime to purchase firearms on behalf of a convicted felon or anyone prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms. While buying guns, Mrs. Day lied to circumvent safeguards designed to prevent criminals from arming themselves. Such action shows a reckless disregard for the safety of our community. In the Middle District of Alabama, straw purchasers should beware that if they lie for a felon, they will become felons themselves."

This is from the NRA web site.

It is also illegal to buy a gun for a prohibited person (called a "straw purchase") or provide a gun to a prohibited person by any other means. These are felony offenses punishable by 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

The key aspect of all these definitions is the part about providing a gun to a prohibited person. This is the necessary criminal intent in trying to circumvent the law.

About 20 years ago a local store had a sale on Ruger 10/22s. Great price, but limited to stock on hand. A guy who wanted one had to work that day so he asked a buddy who was going to go and buy one to get one for him, too. He gave him the money. He bought two rifles, filled out the 4473 and gave one rifle to the buddy who had to work and miss the sale. Some would say that this was a straw purchase using a strict interpretation that any purchase made by any person other than the actual end user is a straw purchase. But no prosecutor would agree because there was no criminal intent. The working buddy was not prohibited from buying or owning the gun and nobody was trying to circumvent the law.

joab
August 7, 2007, 11:32 AM
But in the case of straw purchases, the key element is the intent to get around the law and provide a gun to a prohibited person.Intent doesn't matter
A straw purchase is fully explained by the ATF created form that we all must fill out and sign prior to buying a gun

It is possible, and I cite an example at the end of this commentary, to buy a gun with someone else’s money without criminal intent.If you intentionally buy a gun through criminal means then there is criminal intent
About 20 years ago a local store had a sale on Ruger 10/22s. Great price, but limited to stock on hand. A guy who wanted one had to work that day so he asked a buddy who was going to go and buy one to get one for him, too. He gave him the money. He bought two rifles, filled out the 4473 and gave one rifle to the buddy who had to work and miss the sale. Some would say that this was a straw purchase using a strict interpretation that any purchase made by any person other than the actual end user is a straw purchase. But no prosecutor would agree because there was no criminal intent. The working buddy was not prohibited from buying or owning the gun and nobody was trying to circumvent the law.
It is not that some would say this, it is that the law says this
And it has nothing to do with the actual end user, a gift is perfectly legal
This is all fully explained on the back of form 4473

It is true that felons use straw purchases to acquire guns illegally but that is not the defining aspect of a straw purchase
If you gift a gun to a person you know to be prohibited you are committing a crime we all agree with that.

If you use father O'Rourke's money to buy him a gun because he doesn't think it is proper for him to be seen buying a gun, you have committed a strawpurchase
If you use the gangbanger next door's money to buy him a gun because he knows it isn't proper for him to be seen buying a gun you have committed a strawpurchase

What is the common denominator here?

joab
August 7, 2007, 11:45 AM
I'll make a deal with you

If you read the part of the BATF form that I am talking about and can logically come to any other conclusion, I'll change my opinion

Neo-Luddite
August 7, 2007, 12:04 PM
The problem, to my thinking, is a question of scale. If you started buying crates of C/R weapons (think yugo sks's) and passing the savings along to other C/R lic. pals---someone at ATF may decide that you're engaging in dealing on that type 3. The saving grace might be if everyone is a type 3 and the log books are spot-on accurate and up to date. It could be an ugly cascade effect if anyone in the group has a sloppy log. On the face of things, it seems like you might be poking a stick at a (potential) hornets nest to save a few bucks.

But hey, if you can't collect guns with the thing---whta good is it?

Novus Collectus
August 7, 2007, 12:35 PM
It would be just a few gun purchases, maybe three here and three there every few months at most......and there would be no profit made because everything would be at cost.

Neo-Luddite
August 7, 2007, 12:52 PM
and there would be no profit made

You're using logic in a space where often none seems to apply! Good luck and above all; have everyone involved double check each others logs--you know, make a party of it!

-Mike

SaxonPig
August 7, 2007, 06:31 PM
Can't agree with the priest scenario. The others, yes, because they are all prohibited buyers. The priest isn't (I assume) so no crime.

I have read all the ATF regs and find them typical double speak. You can find differing definitions and varying descriptions and total contradictions. Like I said, the fact that so many people have so many different interpretations tells us how fouled up the laws are.

I have no doubt that a few ATF agents would see the priest scenario as illegal. But, I can just about guarantee you that no prosecutor would be interested in pursuing the case (if it could be made) against your priest since he's not a prohibited buyer and the purpose of the law is prevent prohibited persons from buying guns. The purpose of the law is not to keep a friend from doing some shopping for the priest.

tulsamal
August 7, 2007, 09:17 PM
ATF used to say a straw person purchase was when you bought a gun for somebody who is prohibited from buying that gun. But they have changed their mind on that. If you find current regs, there is no mention of "prohibited." It simply says, "buying a gun for another person." You are allowed to buy a gun to give as a gift. But you aren't allowed to take the other person's money and go buy a gun for them. It doesn't matter in the least if they can legally own the gun.

As others said, we don't make the rules and they don't have to make sense.

Gregg

gezzer
August 7, 2007, 09:44 PM
You are talking transfers between FFL holders, There is NO STRAW SALE.
With a C&R you may not be in the business of making a profit. Group buying with shipping to one C&R and then transferring to the other C&R’s at no profit is within the idea of the law.

DMK
August 7, 2007, 10:18 PM
Intent doesn't matter
A straw purchase is fully explained by the ATF created form that we all must fill out and sign prior to buying a gun... This is all fully explained on the back of form 4473 There is no 4473 form with a C&R or FFL purchase.

joab
August 7, 2007, 11:16 PM
There is no 4473 form with a C&R or FFL purchase.
Side conversation
Whether or not we have to fill one out or not as C&R licensees. unless we have nothing in our collection but relics , gifts and private purchases, we have all filled one out

And regardless of whether you have filled on out or not straw purchases are fully explained in non double speak third grade English on the back of one

The purpose of the law is not to keep a friend from doing some shopping for the priest.I take it you have not bothered to actually read the passage I keep referencing, on the back of the form 4473.
It is fully explained there
If you can read it and logically draw any other conclusion please share I will gladly change my opinion

Tim Burke
August 8, 2007, 11:39 AM
My understanding matches joab's. For those that suggest that his interpretation doesn't make sense, there are 3 possible answers.
It's Federal law; no one says it has to make sense.
Perhaps the government wants to be able to find the original purchaser using the 4473.
Perhaps the government wants to take away the straw purchaser's ability to claim "I didn't know he was a prohibited person."


Part of the reason for the confusion may be explained by this, taken from the Google cache of this link. (http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2003/Gray-Gun-Stories.htm):
In 1980, the BATF published written guidelines for firearms dealers, detailing the meaning of "Straw Man Transaction." The BATF explained that it was all right for one person to purchase a gun on behalf of a second person, "as long as the ultimate recipient is not prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm." In 1984 and 1988, BATF published similar guidelines.
In 1995, BATF changed the guidance, and instructed dealers that a straw purchase also includes sales in which both the initial buyer and the ultimate recipient could legally purchase and possess firearms.
I had to use the cached version because I couldn't connect to Dave Kopel's site.

Rufus Pisanus
August 8, 2007, 12:39 PM
I must admit that I don't see the problem. Let's look at it in the following way:

1. I buy three C&R rifles and I record them on my bound book when they arrive. This is clearly ok.

2. I sell two of them to other C&R holder who record them on their bound books. This must be ok. Nowhere I have seen a minimum time between buying and selling. Just to make sure I'll sell the two in worse shape ...
Note also that the two guns have a traceable record. This wouldn't be true for a straw purchase (regardless of whether the ultimate recipient is legal or not).

3. I make sure that I don't make money out of it. That's the easy part.

Now admittedly I am not a lawyer ...

P.S. when an FFL01 buys firearms he does so with the intent of selling them...one way of doing it legally
is by filling the 4473 and doing a NICS check. Another for C&R eligible firearms is to just sell it to a C&R FFL03
holder doing the proper reporting on the bound book. I don't think that the case we are discussing is different modulo the fact that the FFL03 cannot make money out of if

If you enjoyed reading about "C&R to C&R sale legality" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!