Straw Purchase?


PDA






Texan Scott
November 14, 2012, 09:36 PM
I can't find exact legal verbiage for this, and might not interpret it correctly if I did. Exactly what is /is not a straw purchase?

If person A gives person B money to buy a gun, and person B buys the gun, fills out the 4473, and gives the gun to person A, is this an illegal straw purchase?

Even if A and B reside in the same state /locality (no inter state transfers, no state or local restrictions on person to person transfers) AND neither party is a prohibited person?

If B signs the 4473, pays with A's cash, and gives the gun to A, would the feds still consider this a crime?

If you enjoyed reading about "Straw Purchase?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nightdiver
November 14, 2012, 09:48 PM
Quoted from the ATF website:



Keep in mind that a straw purchase is a purchase in which the actual purchaser uses someone else — a.k.a. the “straw person” — to purchase the firearm and complete the paperwork. 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.

bikemutt
November 14, 2012, 10:00 PM
I believe under the scenario the OP presented, that would be a straw purchase; simply put, the transferee is not the purchaser.

Bovice
November 14, 2012, 10:08 PM
When deciding if it is a straw purchase or not, look at where the money comes from. If Person A uses their own money and buys a gun which he later gives to person B, that is not a straw purchase.

Texan Scott
November 14, 2012, 11:06 PM
I was pretty sure it was. See, today someone I care about (who is employed by an FFL holder) almost knowingly did this. I panicked and flipped out on them- stomped them pretty hard, a real verbal butt ripping actually. Well, it's not going to happen, but I value my relationship with this person, and I know I did damage. I hurt a friend, and I feel rotten.

When I calmed down, and remorse set in, the horrible thought occurred to me - what if I'm wrong? I don't want someone close to me to lose their job or go to jail, but to do what I did NEEDLESSLY would be terrible.

You guys can't persuade me that I wasn't a huge jerk... but you can go right on explaining how I wasn't incorrect. It's all I got right now, and it's knowledge worth putting out there.

dogtown tom
November 14, 2012, 11:36 PM
Texan Scott I was pretty sure it was. See, today someone I care about (who is employed by an FFL holder) almost knowingly did this. I panicked and flipped out on them- stomped them pretty hard, a real verbal butt ripping actually. Well, it's not going to happen, but I value my relationship with this person, and I know I did damage. I hurt a friend, and I feel rotten.
You stopped your friend from committing a Federal crime. He should be the one feeling rotten..........you kept him from doing a crime that is punishable by ten years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

LubeckTech
November 15, 2012, 12:55 AM
It could have been a setup and the persons doing the "purchase" ATF operatives. I don't believe the courts recognize entrapment anymore.

hermannr
November 15, 2012, 01:22 AM
Follow the money.

Senario: I take my wife to the gun store, she picks out a gun, I pay for it, fill out the forms. and give it to her,

My money: it is a gift

Her money: it is a straw purchase.

Put anyone you want where I used the word "wife", the effect is the same.

Davek1977
November 15, 2012, 04:39 AM
LubeckTech said: I don't believe the courts recognize entrapment anymore. That is a COMPLETELY bogus, inaccurate statement that in no way applies to this scenario even if it WERE an ATF sting. Entrapment involves the police or state MAKING you commit a crime, not merely giving you the opportunity to commit one. If an ATF agent offered to sell you an unregistered machine gun, and you took him up on the offer, no entrapment occurred...you voluntarily committed a crime. Simply offering to sell you the gun doesn't constitute entrapment in the least. An undercover operation where officers pose as drug dealers to arrest potential customers isn't entrapment either....giving someone the opprotunity to buy drugs isn't the same thing as holding a gun to their head and FORCING them to buy drugs. Unless force or coercion is used, there is no basis whatsoever for a claim of entrapment. To claim that the legal standard of entrapment ceases to exist is an extremely erroneous statement.

Sergei Mosin
November 15, 2012, 05:47 AM
Sometimes Mr. Nice Guy doesn't work. Sometimes you have to be a jerk in order to get the point across in time to prevent something bad from happening.

I was not there; I cannot and will not judge whether Mr. Nice Guy would have worked. For that matter, you can't be sure about it either. But apparently being a jerk did work - you prevented your friend (and two other people) from committing a felony, with all that entails. So be glad that you saved them from themselves.

In similar circumstances, I will often offer a semi-apology: "Sorry for being such a jerk about it, but right then I couldn't see any other way to do it." Usually people are pretty understanding; they realize that you did them a huge favor and don't much care how you went about it.

Look at it this way: your buddy owes you lunch for bailing him out. You owe him lunch for being a jerk. Call it even, go out to lunch, and forget about it.

Sam1911
November 15, 2012, 05:49 AM
We can't know how gently or brutally you spoke -- or how gently or brutally you NEEDED to speak -- to stop this from happening, so whether you're a big jerk is left to the participants to decide. :)

However, on the whole you did the right thing. They may never appreciate that fact, and this "crime" happens probably thousands of times a week across the country, but it is technically a federal felony violation and they should NOT have completed that transaction.

So kudos on your knowledge and willingness to help your friend. Work on your presentation! :D

Sam1911
November 15, 2012, 05:51 AM
Look at it this way: your buddy owes you lunch for bailing him out. You owe him lunch for being a jerk. Call it even, go out to lunch, and forget about it.EXACTLY right, and I'd use that as an opener when I saw him/her the next time.

"Look, you owe me lunch for keeping you on the right side of the law. I owe you lunch for being a jerk about it. Let's call it even and go get lunch!"

Carl N. Brown
November 15, 2012, 06:23 AM
The layman terms explanation of "straw purchase" is here:
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/index.htm

Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF P 5300.4 -
Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005 (Revised - 9/05)] Page 165

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.

Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form 4473. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records.

Other than buying a gun as a bona fide gift for a non-prohibited person, you can legally buy a gun for your own personal use. What will get you in deep doo-doo is if you buy for a person who is a "prohibited person" who would not pass a NICS BG check OR buy for a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license. If you fit a pattern of buying as a straw or buying for resale, ATF can and sometimes will "stop and knock" to see if you have the gun. What will really hurt you with most ATF is you getting a "street rep" as an unquestioning source for weapons but that is usually more "dealing without a license", like one guy who showed up at the local flea market month after month liquidating his gun collection (in the meantime buying guns for the collection to liquidate at the flea).

When my son got his first good job, every payday almost he would go to the local gunshop and buy a gun off his "wish list" and on the third buy in one month was given a friendly warning from the dealer. He was also given a "heads up" when he saw a good deal on Yugo M70AB2s with full accessories and bought one for himself and one for me as a belated birthday gift. He has passed TBI and FBI BG checks for handgun carry license and got a CLEO sign-off on a Form 4 and thought it was all silly. But the law is: (a) you can buy for personal use with (b) the exception that a bona fide gift to a non-prohibited person is recognized as a legal personal use.


(If you want bogus info on "straw purchase" and "dealing without a license" you could consult Katherine Eban, "The Truth about the "Fast and Furious" Scandal", CNN/Fortune, 27 Jun 2012. Her type of "truth" is sold at Tractor Supply in bags as natural fertilize, but you would be surprised at the number of people who have gotten their explanation of "straw purchase" from that article.)

Carl N. Brown
November 15, 2012, 06:29 AM
Texan Scott: "You guys can't persuade me that I wasn't a huge jerk... "

I count you as rude as a guy who shouted expletives at a blindman about to step out in the path of a truck.

Ever so often on the gun boards people complain about situations where a couple have gone into a store to buy a gun as a gift, one party looks at and picks out the gun, then the other goes to fill out the 4473 and pay for the gun, and the dealer refuses the sale because it appears to be a straw purchase, especially if the picker hands cash or credit card to the purchaser. Dealers are advised by ATF that they are not obligated to complete a suspicious sale (unless it is part of an investigation).

Blackrock
November 15, 2012, 07:31 AM
Remminds me of the time when my daughter and I were looking for a new rifle for her. She finally settled on one she liked and said "this is the one I want, can you buy this one for me". I saw the look go across the clerks face like 'UH OH". So I told her "you do the paperwork in your name and I will cover it. The clerk said no problem.

Straw purchase vs. gift can be misconstrued so easily by seller and purchaser that the waters can get pretty muddy. The clerk told me that whoevers hands the firearm goes into must fill out the 4473. He didn't care who eventually paid for it.

Sam1911
November 15, 2012, 07:45 AM
The clerk told me that whoevers hands the firearm goes into must fill out the 4473. He didn't care who eventually paid for it.It is a tricky issue to fully understand as it is fraught with rather absurdly fine lines and grey areas.

It isn't surprising that a clerk would say such a thing, but he really had it pretty much backward.

A) You buy the gun, you fill out the paperwork, you pay for the gun. You turn around and hand it to daughter -- "happy birthday, here's your gift!" That's fine.

B) She picks out the gun, she fills out the paperwork, YOU put down the money -- that's usually considered a warning sign that YOU are the actual purchaser and recipient of the gun, and she's just filling out the paperwork in your stead.

When this is a parent and child coming in to pick out Junior's (or Sis') new hunting rifle most gun store clerks are pretty lax about who pays and who signs.

C) However, things get pretty dicey when it's a (fill in the blank rough-looking) dude who comes in with his girlfriend/wife/ol' lady/etc. and she picks out a Hi-Point or Glock or AK or whatever (just to keep the stereotypes rolling ;)) and fills out the paperwork while HE plunks down a roll of bills to pay for it. That screams to the clerk that the dude is a felon and can't pass the background check for the new "gat" he wants, so he's getting his companion to buy it for him.

Now, "B" and "C" are both in straw purchase territory, but technically "D" isn't!

D) Same rough dude and his ol' lady come in, she whips out a roll of Benjamins and purchases that Glock or Hi-Point or AK, fills out the 4473 and passes, then turns around, hands it to the dude and says, "Here, happy birthday." That's not a straw purchase. That's a legal gift (unless, of course, he actually IS prohibited from possessing a firearm).

fatcat4620
November 15, 2012, 09:05 AM
What if person A and B are married and person B uses person A's check card because person B forgot theirs?

mgkdrgn
November 15, 2012, 09:25 AM
I can't find exact legal verbiage for this, and might not interpret it correctly if I did. Exactly what is /is not a straw purchase?

If person A gives person B money to buy a gun, and person B buys the gun, fills out the 4473, and gives the gun to person A, is this an illegal straw purchase?

Even if A and B reside in the same state /locality (no inter state transfers, no state or local restrictions on person to person transfers) AND neither party is a prohibited person?

If B signs the 4473, pays with A's cash, and gives the gun to A, would the feds still consider this a crime?
yes in all cases that you state... both parties are felons

Sam1911
November 15, 2012, 09:50 AM
What if person A and B are married and person B uses person A's check card because person B forgot theirs?Well, that gets into the absurd grey areas. Being married doesn't technically have anything to do with it at all.

However, married couples often have joint accounts and if that was the case then person B is really using his/her money rather than person A's specifically ... but who has to sign the card receipt? And, in the end it comes back to who is the purchaser, exactly.

I'd wager that 95% of the time if a couple is in the store and the husband is buying himself a gun and has to use his wife's check card on their joint account, the clerk is going to give that a pass. (And vice-versa ... probably.) Where does it fall under the letter of the law? Well, that's a real question, isn't it?

CoRoMo
November 15, 2012, 10:30 AM
I've seen flat-out blatantly obvious straw purchases go through with the clerk's consent and I've seen innocent and honest attempts at a legit transaction get tossed out of the store because another clerk thought it was a straw purchase.

Guy walks in with his girlfriend and walks straight over to a Mossberg and tells her, "This is the one", takes it to the counter and tells the guy, "We want to buy this one." The clerk hands him the 4473 and asks for his ID and the guy jumps back and says, "No! We're gonna put this one in her name." So she fills out the paperwork, they pay and the boyfriend carries the shotgun out.

A dad and son looking at Kimbers. Son chooses one and dad tells the clerk, "I'll buy this one for him." Both father and son are tossed out and treated like criminals.

It happens every day all across the nation.

Owen Sparks
November 15, 2012, 11:25 AM
So what if it is a Christmas present?

Sam1911
November 15, 2012, 11:28 AM
So what if it is a Christmas present?

OK... from my examples above:

A) You buy the gun, you fill out the paperwork, you pay for the gun. You turn around and hand it to daughter -- "MERRY CHRISTMAS, here's your gift!" That's fine.

D) Same rough dude and his ol' lady come in, she whips out a roll of Benjamins and purchases that Glock or Hi-Point or AK, fills out the 4473 and passes, then turns around, hands it to the dude and says, "Here, MERRY CHRISTMAS." That's not a straw purchase. That's a legal gift (unless, of course, he actually IS prohibited from possessing a firearm).

gfanikf
November 15, 2012, 11:36 AM
OK... from my examples above:

A) You buy the gun, you fill out the paperwork, you pay for the gun. You turn around and hand it to daughter -- "MERRY CHRISTMAS, here's your gift!" That's fine.

D) Same rough dude and his ol' lady come in, she whips out a roll of Benjamins and purchases that Glock or Hi-Point or AK, fills out the 4473 and passes, then turns around, hands it to the dude and says, "Here, MERRY CHRISTMAS." That's not a straw purchase. That's a legal gift (unless, of course, he actually IS prohibited from possessing a firearm).
Same with Hanukkah too? :)

brboyer
November 15, 2012, 12:09 PM
I took my very pregnant daughter into my LGS, she pointed her big belly to a S&W 638, a Marlin 60, and a Remington 700. Told the clerk "he (pointing to her belly) wants those three, but he's a little shy, so Grandpa is going to fill out the paperwork for him." Somehow the clerk (and the owner) had no problem with the purchase.:D

Also found out the wifey does not complain so much when I buy guns (or most anything else) for the grand kids. Even when I have to hold on to them for 10-12 years before they get them. And of course I have to make sure they remain operational and sighted in til then.;)

Riceman98
November 15, 2012, 12:39 PM
Everyone says follow the money. What about in community property states (such as Idaho)? There is no such thing as "her money" or "his money". It is "their Money".

2000Yards
November 15, 2012, 01:21 PM
Everyone says follow the money. What about in community property states (such as Idaho)? There is no such thing as "her money" or "his money". It is "their Money".

This is where it may genuinely make a difference as to whether it is a married or unmarried couple. Either person has legal claim to the money - it's irrelevant who earned it.

Example: Wife earns a paycheck, husband doesn't. Husband and wife go to LGS, wife points out a gun, husband fills out paperwork and pays for the gun from their joint account, then hands it to her upon exiting LGS. I imagine it would be difficult for the gov. to make a case that this was a straw purchase because her paycheck is community property (in a community property state and assuming no separate property) and he's a rightful owner. Other laws not with standing, I can see how it COULD make a difference for a married couple.

Does anyone know whether fed. regs address this?

Frank Ettin
November 15, 2012, 01:27 PM
Remember, the crime is making a false statement on the 4473 regarding who the actual purchaser is (in violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6)). Once the first person makes that false statement on the 4473, the crime has been committed.

So, if --


X says to Y, "Here's the money; buy that gun and then we'll do the transfer to me [when I get back to town, or whenever else].", or


X says to Y, "Buy that gun and hold it for me; I'll buy from you when I get my next paycheck."

or anything similar, if Y then buys the gun, he is not the actual buyer. He is buying the gun as the agent of X, on his behalf; and X is legally the actual buyer. If Y claims on the 4473 that he is the actual buyer, he has lied and violated 18 USC 922(a)(6). His subsequently transferring the gun to X in full compliance with the law, does not erase his prior criminal act of lying on the 4473.

Some more examples --

If X takes his own money, buys the gun and gives the gun to someone else as a gift, free and clear without reimbursement of any kind, X is the actual purchaser; and it is not a straw purchase.


If X takes his money and buys the gun honestly intending to keep it for himself and later sells it to another person, father is the actual purchaser; and it is not a straw purchase.


If X takes his money and buys the gun intending to take it to the gun show next week to see if he might be able to sell it to someone at a profit, X is the actual purchaser; and it's not a straw purchase. He may, however have other problems if he manages to sell the gun at the gun show, and the transfer there isn't handled properly. He might also have problems if he does this sort of thing too frequently, and the ATF decides he's acting as a dealer without the necessary license.


If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.

Whether or not a transaction is an unlawful straw purpose will often be a question of intent. But prosecutors in various situations can convince juries of intent, often from circumstantial evidence. A slip of the tongue, posting something on the Internet, tracks left by money transfers have all, in one way or another, and in various contexts, helped convince a jury of intent.

bobbo
November 15, 2012, 04:55 PM
...this is why if I go to the gun shop with someone, THEY fill out the 4473. Heck, I had a NICS check run on my mother when I bought her a rifle for Christmas a few years ago.

mgkdrgn
November 15, 2012, 05:55 PM
This is where it may genuinely make a difference as to whether it is a married or unmarried couple. Either person has legal claim to the money - it's irrelevant who earned it.

Example: Wife earns a paycheck, husband doesn't. Husband and wife go to LGS, wife points out a gun, husband fills out paperwork and pays for the gun from their joint account, then hands it to her upon exiting LGS. I imagine it would be difficult for the gov. to make a case that this was a straw purchase because her paycheck is community property (in a community property state and assuming no separate property) and he's a rightful owner. Other laws not with standing, I can see how it COULD make a difference for a married couple.

Does anyone know whether fed. regs address this?
Yes.

Was the gun a "gift" to his wife, or was HE filling out the 4473 because he knew she was a prohibited person?

Who the money comes from really doesn't even enter into it.

k_dawg
November 15, 2012, 06:03 PM
IMHO: The money should not matter. It is that the person who is going to own/have/use the firearm, is the one who filled out the 4473 form.

blarby
November 15, 2012, 06:34 PM
If person A gives person B money to buy a gun, and person B buys the gun, fills out the 4473, and gives the gun to person A, is this an illegal straw purchase?

Yep, its that simple.

Amazing, huh ?

mgmorden
November 15, 2012, 08:18 PM
IMHO: The money should not matter. It is that the person who is going to own/have/use the firearm, is the one who filled out the 4473 form.

That's most certainly not the case though. The ATF itself has upheld that its ok to purchase a gun as a gift to someone.

I've done it before myself. Saw a gun last year at a good deal and knew my brother didn't have a long range hunting rifle of his own, so I bought the gun (and filled out the 4473) and gave it to him on his birthday. The gun was for him to own and use, but I paid for it with my money and gave it as a gift. That's perfectly legal and not considered a straw purchase.

hermannr
November 15, 2012, 08:47 PM
This is where it may genuinely make a difference as to whether it is a married or unmarried couple. Either person has legal claim to the money - it's irrelevant who earned it.

Example: Wife earns a paycheck, husband doesn't. Husband and wife go to LGS, wife points out a gun, husband fills out paperwork and pays for the gun from their joint account, then hands it to her upon exiting LGS. I imagine it would be difficult for the gov. to make a case that this was a straw purchase because her paycheck is community property (in a community property state and assuming no separate property) and he's a rightful owner. Other laws not with standing, I can see how it COULD make a difference for a married couple.

Does anyone know whether fed. regs address this?
WA is a community property state. I purchased an absolutely beautiful High Standard Trophy, extra lr barrels, short only kit (slide and barrels), compensator, weights, all the extras, for my wife for a birthday present a few years ago. She picked it out, I purchased it..but if you want to follow the money, I am the only earner, she has always been a housewife...even though she spends most of the money, if it is an unusual purchase we always discuss it first.

Oh yes, as for a prohibited person,,,she is 64 years old and has neot even had a traffic violation, even though she has driven since she was 16 (in NYS BTW)

bikemutt
November 15, 2012, 08:58 PM
That's most certainly not the case though. The ATF itself has upheld that its ok to purchase a gun as a gift to someone.

I've done it before myself. Saw a gun last year at a good deal and knew my brother didn't have a long range hunting rifle of his own, so I bought the gun (and filled out the 4473) and gave it to him on his birthday. The gun was for him to own and use, but I paid for it with my money and gave it as a gift. That's perfectly legal and not considered a straw purchase.
Exactly. My wife has bought me several shotguns for birthday gifts, all disclosed as such to the FFLs, all legal.

The only change I wish to make is to make birthdays a monthly affair :)

Jim K
November 15, 2012, 09:22 PM
Davek wrote about entrapment:

"That is a COMPLETELY bogus, inaccurate statement that in no way applies to this scenario even if it WERE an ATF sting. Entrapment involves the police or state MAKING you commit a crime .... "

Well, that statement is at least a partly bogus, inaccurate statement. Entrapment does not involve coercion or force. If a person is forced to commit a crime, there is no crime. I have never heard of a case where a LEO actually forced anyone to commit a crime; maybe it has happened but it would clearly involve an illegal action on the part of the LEO.

Entrapment occurs when a LEO does something that causes a person to commit a crime when that person had no previous intent of committing a crime. There is a often a fine line, which is why courts don't usually buy the "entrapment" defense.

Giving a person who is pre-disposed to commit a crime (the street pusher who needs a new supply) the opportunity to do so is not entrapment.

That is why LEO's will always make sure that the person involved brings up the idea. In the above case, it would probably be entrapment IF the ATF agent raised the issue and made the offer; making a tempting offer IS entrapment if the person had no prior intention of committing a crime. But if the other person told an ATF "friend" that he wanted a machinegun and would pay x dollars for one, there is no entrapment - the person was predisposed to commit the crime.

So what else would entrapment be? A case of entrapment might be where a woman police officer entices an innocent male into committing a crime by making sexual promises she has no intention of keeping.

Or where undercover police spend weeks pretending to befriend a person while enticing and persuading him to commit a crime so they can arrest him. (Such cases have happened where police believed a person was guilty but couldn't prove it.)

Jim

blarby
November 16, 2012, 12:34 AM
In all of the "wife " statements- why not just have the wife buy the dang thing ?

Assume you want to give a true gift, and not have her know about it :

If you are the sole earner, it is your money.

You can buy a gift, and give it to someone. Thats addressed. Thats OK.

I can't conceive of an area where she would give you a handful of exclusively her money, and say buy me a secret gun gift. If she did, sadly, yes, thats a straw purchase.

If you have communal property, and its a gift to your spouse, .......... Its also your property.

However, names go on forms in federaly land, and federaly land in this instance doesn't support communal property. If you have communal assets, this would be impossible to prove. Thats why there are no cases of this, as pursuing it is not in the spirit or intent of the law. IF you can find one- show it to me.... I will print this thread in entirety, eat it, and video tape it to put on youtube. Guaranteed.

Straw purchase is not difficult to understand. Its just not.

Give every scenario you want, one by one, and lets go over them- you can see and address each one very easy.

Straw gifting does not exist.

Straw purchasing. Does.

If you wink wink and nod nod it, you can do amazing things. But thats not the intent.

Of all of the byzantine gun regulations, this is perhaps the easiest one to follow.

Frank made about the plainest explanation possible- read that again please !

HankB
November 17, 2012, 11:40 PM
Married couple finances are usually so thoroughly co-mingled it would be extremely difficult to say one paid for a firearm with "the other person's" money - if anyone can cite a case of such a prosecution where neither party was a prohibited person, please do so.

I also have very strong reason to believe that in some instances a parent buys a firearm on behalf of Junior who has earned money bagging groceries, delivering newspapers, or whatever, but not being 18, is ineligible to purchase a firearm himself so Mom or Dad has to do the paperwork . . . but Junior pays. Again, unless Junior goes on to do something nefarious, I'd like a cite of a case in which Mom or Dad was prosecuted as a straw purchaser for filling out the paperwork for a gun bought with Junior's money. (An argument can be made that Junior's cash = parent's cash.)

The law's been on the books for decades, and in a nation with 330,000,000 people, there must be multiple instances of prosecution where examples like those above have been prosecuted . . . if it's actually a concern.

If you enjoyed reading about "Straw Purchase?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!