What is a "Straw Purchase?" (see post 23)


PDA

HEAVY METAL 1
January 31, 2013, 11:54 PM
Let's say your buddy has the opportunity to purchase 2 guns of the type you both are wanting and he offers to sell one to you. You are not under any legal prohibition from buying one yourself, but you live some distance away and are unable to travel to the seller's place to buy it yourself.

I know a straw buy is buying one for an unqualified individual, but is the above hypothetical situation considered a straw purchase as well? In my mind this is no different than buying 2 guns on sale and you turn around and sell one for a profit.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is a "Straw Purchase?" (see post 23)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
suemarkp
February 1, 2013, 12:29 AM
Yes I think this is a straw purchase, especially if he gives you money for it in advance. The eligibility of the other person isn't the issue -- the 4473 asks if this gun is for YOU. So either you are lying on the form or the transaction will be denied.

There is a gift provision, but doesn't seem to fit your scenario.

If you're specifically buying it to sell, and make a profit at it, you're close to dealing in firearms without a license.

dogtown tom
February 1, 2013, 12:32 AM
HEAVY METAL 1 Let's say your buddy has the opportunity to purchase 2 guns of the type you both are wanting and he offers to sell one to you. You are not under any legal prohibition from buying one yourself, but you live some distance away and are unable to travel to the seller's place to buy it yourself.

I know a straw buy is buying one for an unqualified individual, but is the above hypothetical situation considered a straw purchase as well? In my mind this is no different than buying 2 guns on sale and you turn around and sell one for a profit.
The term "straw purchase" is often used in the wrong context. A straw purchase occurs when somone OTHER THAN the actual buyer/transferee attempts to acquire a firearm from a licensed DEALER. If the seller is not a licensed dealer then a straw purchase is impossible.

If the straw purchaser signs the 4473 they commit perjury as they were NOT the actual buyer. ATF makes it clear on the 4473 that buying a firearm as a "gift" is completely legal as long as the third party is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm.

A straw purchase is not solely "buying for a prohibited person", but buying on behalf of ANYONE else.....from a licensed dealer.

BK
February 1, 2013, 12:36 AM
If the seller is a dealer then it is a straw purchase because your friend is not the actual purchaser of that firearm and when he has to answer this question on the 4473 he will either have to lie or the truth will negate the transaction. A straw purchase doesn't have to mean that the intended end user is prohibited from taking posession. It means the end user used another purchser to acquire the gun.

Davey Wavey
February 1, 2013, 12:50 AM
What if the original buyer sells the gun and transfers out of state through an FFL? Is that still a straw purchase?

I ask because my out of state brother in law was looking for some ar15 lowers and I offered to buy one off him if he were able to find any.

john wall
February 1, 2013, 12:55 AM
If the person buys the guns for himself WITH HIS OWN MONEY and later decides to sell or gift one or both of them he is good.

He might buy the guns and five minutes later have buyer's remorse and want to sell one. If no laws are violated in transferring, no problem. It is how you say it more than what you say.;)

Fryerpower
February 1, 2013, 01:05 AM
Edit: Left as is for historic record, see post 24 for modified statement.

Your buddy can buy two with his own money, test shoot both, pick out the one he likes, and then sell the other. Completely legal.

(In my non attorney humble opinion.)

Jim

Kiln
February 1, 2013, 04:56 AM
Buying any firearm with the intention to turn around and directly sell it to another person is a staw purchase regardless of whether or not the other person is prohibited.

You can buy a gun with the intent to sell it later for a profit but you can't buy one knowing that you're about to flip it for a profit right afterwards to an unlicensed individual (private sale).

CWS515
February 1, 2013, 07:20 AM
If the person buys the guns for himself WITH HIS OWN MONEY and later decides to sell or gift one or both of them he is good.

He might buy the guns and five minutes later have buyer's remorse and want to sell one. If no laws are violated in transferring, no problem. It is how you say it more than what you say.;)
As John Wall states above it is in the "intent" of the purchaser. However it gets hard to straight face say you had buyer's remorse five minutes after purchase and then sell it as quickly. The further you are from the purchase (purchase date to sell date) when you resell the easier it would be to to keep out of trouble for a "straw purchase". The argument can be made in reselling that you decided it was silly to own two of the same or similar weapon and you weren't using it so you just sold it to your buddy, brother-in-law, whomever. However you do it, you are rolling the dice and taking your chances if you are caught being less than truthful.

curlymaple42
February 1, 2013, 07:26 AM
What if the original buyer sells the gun and transfers out of state through an FFL? Is that still a straw purchase?

I ask because my out of state brother in law was looking for some ar15 lowers and I offered to buy one off him if he were able to find any.

I would guess that your brother rendering it through an ffl to you negates the straw purchase clause. He didn't just hand it to you, rather went through your ffl.

Sent from my DROID RAZR

sean326
February 1, 2013, 07:28 AM
Yes I think this is a straw purchase, especially if he gives you money for it in advance. The eligibility of the other person isn't the issue -- the 4473 asks if this gun is for YOU. So either you are lying on the form or the transaction will be denied.

There is a gift provision, but doesn't seem to fit your scenario.

If you're specifically buying it to sell, and make a profit at it, you're close to dealing in firearms without a license.
Maybe it's a frequency thing... I've been buying guns for 30 years. very infrequently, maybe every couple years if a friend or family member wants a gun that i'm tired of i'll sell or maybe even give it to them. Thats not a straw purchase. when i buy or sell something on GB its FFL to FFL. I even just had a family member knowing that i was going to a gun auction ask me to find a cheap 12g pump for him to keep around the house. I bought an old sears pump for $80.00 that looked dependable and handed it to him a couple days later..... not a straw purchase. Recently sold an '03 to a neighbor for $250.00 that i bought in the '80s for $75.00.... big profit, not a family member, not a straw purchase.

sota
February 1, 2013, 07:57 AM
I'm sorry but...
LEGALLY (folllowing all rules and regulations) buying 2* guns in my name with the explicit intent of selling 1 of those to a friend (also following all rules and regulations regarding private transfers) can not be considered a straw purchase, especially if he is LEGALLY able to own the firearm himself. if all rules and regulations are followed then how can IN-REGION geography be used as a means to declare a sale invalid or a "straw purchase"?

maybe it's because I'm in NJ and work to understand the draconian nature of the laws here, but because of them you can't accidentally have a straw purchase. we have to fill out STS-033 to get a pistol purchase permit, which is then populated with my info (seller) and his info (buyer) and shipped off to the state and local PD's. the only form I would have completed and he wouldn't have would have been 4473. i don't see how it would be lying. Also I think the instructions for line 10.a are ambiguous... which I can't copy/paste here from the PDF for some bizarre reason. My issue is with the wording of buy vs. gift... if someone gives me money to use to buy a handgun it's Bad; but if I use my own money and gift it to them it's Good? it seems like it's a splitting of hairs as to when money changes hands (and from whose hands it comes from.)

To me, 'straw purchasing' as illegal is intent to stop the "he man... I need a gun. go buy one for me" crowd/bad-people, not the "Joe! I'm at CTYM** guns! they got in ONE of that pistol you wanted!" (and Joe can't physically get to the store in a reasonable amount of time for whatever reason.)

* note: yes I know I can only "buy" 1 handgun every 30 days in this state (NJ). technically that's not true... i can buy (physically pay for) as many as I want at one time... I just can't have TRANSFERED to my possession mor than 1 handgun every 30 days without trying to get the exemption put through. so I could buy 12 handguns on Jan 1st, but wouldn't physically take possession of the 12th one until December, without the exemption processed.

** note: please tell me someone got that reference.

CWS515
February 1, 2013, 08:09 AM
Purchasing and later reselling a gun, as it may or may not relate to a so called "straw purchase", has to do with the original intent and context of the purchase and possible "gifting" or reselling of it. If by chance the gun you sell to whomever was ever used for some nefarious purpose the transfer of the gun would be "investigated" taking into account what the factors were that went into the purchase and its subsequent sale or transfer and whether it meets the "straw purchase" definition. Of course what I'm saying here is in the context of dealing with people on all sides who possess some common sense which all too often is sadly lacking.

Kiln
February 1, 2013, 08:28 AM
I'm sorry but...
LEGALLY (folllowing all rules and regulations) buying 2* guns in my name with the explicit intent of selling 1 of those to a friend (also following all rules and regulations regarding private transfers) can not be considered a straw purchase, especially if he is LEGALLY able to own the firearm himself. if all rules and regulations are followed then how can IN-REGION geography be used as a means to declare a sale invalid or a "straw purchase"?

maybe it's because I'm in NJ and work to understand the draconian nature of the laws here, but because of them you can't accidentally have a straw purchase. we have to fill out STS-033 to get a pistol purchase permit, which is then populated with my info (seller) and his info (buyer) and shipped off to the state and local PD's. the only form I would have completed and he wouldn't have would have been 4473. i don't see how it would be lying. Also I think the instructions for line 10.a are ambiguous... which I can't copy/paste here from the PDF for some bizarre reason. My issue is with the wording of buy vs. gift... if someone gives me money to use to buy a handgun it's Bad; but if I use my own money and gift it to them it's Good? it seems like it's a splitting of hairs as to when money changes hands (and from whose hands it comes from.)

To me, 'straw purchasing' as illegal is intent to stop the "he man... I need a gun. go buy one for me" crowd/bad-people, not the "Joe! I'm at CTYM** guns! they got in ONE of that pistol you wanted!" (and Joe can't physically get to the store in a reasonable amount of time for whatever reason.)

* note: yes I know I can only "buy" 1 handgun every 30 days in this state (NJ). technically that's not true... i can buy (physically pay for) as many as I want at one time... I just can't have TRANSFERED to my possession mor than 1 handgun every 30 days without trying to get the exemption put through. so I could buy 12 handguns on Jan 1st, but wouldn't physically take possession of the 12th one until December, without the exemption processed.

** note: please tell me someone got that reference.
All that internet law sounds great in theory but good luck if you happen to end up in court explaining that you didn't perform a straw purchase for somebody and that you just happened to buy two of the same gun and then just happened to decide to sell it immediately.

If you buy a gun FOR somebody with the intent to accept cash for it right afterwards, you're performing a straw purchase.

Bubbles
February 1, 2013, 08:33 AM
LEGALLY (folllowing all rules and regulations) buying 2* guns in my name with the explicit intent of selling 1 of those...
Is dealing without a license.

beatledog7
February 1, 2013, 09:07 AM
There are two questions here: The expressed question, "Is it a straw purchase?" is easy to answer, and it has been answered. The second, unexpressed question is a little more gray: "Is it ethical/responsible?"

That's a question we toss about in many ways on THR, and it always seems to end the same way, with guys on the "keep it ethical/responsible" side being called wimps by guys on the "if it's not technically illegal then I'm doing it" side, and guys on the IINTITIDI side being called out as less-than-respectful by those on the KIER side.

Nobody wins.

Krusty783
February 1, 2013, 09:16 AM
Let's say your buddy has the opportunity to purchase 2 guns of the type you both are wanting and he offers to sell one to you. You are not under any legal prohibition from buying one yourself, but you live some distance away and are unable to travel to the seller's place to buy it yourself.

I know a straw buy is buying one for an unqualified individual, but is the above hypothetical situation considered a straw purchase as well? In my mind this is no different than buying 2 guns on sale and you turn around and sell one for a profit.

http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/swf/toon4.html

Yes, this is a straw purchase, albeit with good intentions. You should purchase 1 of the firearms as a gift, but I don't know the proper way to do that. I suppose you'd have to get the FFL to hold it while your friend sends him a copy of his ID and use that to fill out the paperwork. Assuming your buddy passes the background check and pays for the firearm, you could then take possession of it on his behalf to transport it to him. Though, given today's market, I haven't seen a single dealer willing to hold anything without payment in hand which means you'd have to pay for your friends gun, which would be a grey area between a straw purchase and a gift, legally.

In reality, you could decide to buy two yourself and then realize you don't need two and sell one of them. Doing this repeatedly will constitute a business. Doing this infrequently will probably not land you in any trouble because I don't see the authorities going after everyone selling marked up ARs and ammo on gunbroker and gunsamerica, so I doubt they'll come looking for you. Also, there is no "gun registry" and the only evidence of intent is your testimony in the gunbroker listing, etc. So yes, this is a straw purchase and illegal, but I highly doubt anyone doing this for a friend who is eligible to purchase the firearm, but happens to not be in the right place, will get caught unless they start blabbing about it.

CLP
February 1, 2013, 09:33 AM
Whether it is or isn't a straw purchase, I have no moral objections to the scenario posted by the OP.

Phatty
February 1, 2013, 10:22 AM
As others have mentioned, when determining whether a transaction is a "straw purchase" it makes no difference whether the gun is being purchased for a prohibited person.

But, from a practical point of view, the odds of you being prosecuted for a "straw purchase" go up dramatically if the person you turn around and sell the gun to is a prohibited person. There are two reasons for this: (1) if the transferee is not a prohibited person than it is a "no harm, no foul" situation where its not worth anyone's time to prosecute, and (2) it makes it extremely difficult to prove intent when there was no barrier to the transferee simply buying the weapon on his own from the dealer.

Not a straw purchase: You go into a gun store and see a great deal on a shotgun that you know your friend has been saying he really wants. You buy it, hoping to immediately sell it to your friend.

Straw purchase: You mention to your friend that you saw a great deal in a gun shop the day before on shotguns and you plan to go there again today to buy one. You ask him if he wants you to buy one for him too. He says yes and gives you money to buy one for him. You go to the store later that day and buy the shotguns.

CoRoMo
February 1, 2013, 10:46 AM
Emphasis added...
Buying any firearm with the intention to turn around and directly sell it to another person is a staw purchase regardless of whether or not the other person is prohibited.

You can buy a gun with the intent to sell it later for a profit but you can't buy one knowing that you're about to flip it for a profit right afterwards to an unlicensed individual (private sale).
Not necessarily. As has been stated, and since the OP never mentioned buying from a dealer, straw purchases can only occur illegally when buying from a dealer. If you buy the estate of a deceased gun owner while only interested in keeping one of the items, with the premeditated intention of selling off the remaining lot that came with it, directly thereafter, you are not "in a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms". (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921)

A straw purchase is ONLY defined as a transaction where the purchaser lies when answering question 11a on the 4473 form: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

grahluk
February 1, 2013, 10:55 AM
I know I'm going to catch it from some here but after reading through all of this I'm not buying it. Too many vagaries of intention and too many ways to fall afoul of the law or skirt it for reasons benign or malicious. Call me what you like but I think this is one area I can support the antis on. Background check and recorded transfer for all sales and transfers. "Assault weapon" ban. No. Magazine restrictions. No. Registration. No. Improving databases of prohibited individuals, NICS checks on all sales & transfers, putting serious teeth into prosecution of crimes. Yes. Sorry if it's an inconvenience for someone who just wants to pick up a firearm for their buddy because they just happen to be at the dealer and could pick it up for him. If he wants it that bad he can get his ass down there with cash & ID to purchase it himself. If he's far away or out of state that's not a problem either in this day and age. Call up the dealer, put a deposit down on CC and start the sale then FFL>FFL the weapon to him.

CoRoMo
February 1, 2013, 11:05 AM
The only reason you should catch any flak is because you are trying to drift the discussion away from the original topic and onto gun control ideology.

I would point out that the universal background checks that you advocate would not prevent someone from buying two guns from a dealer, one with his own money and one with his buddy's money, only to turn around and hand one of those guns to the buddy. You can't regulate that action away, it will occur regardless of what new law is written. Criminal straw purchases cannot be prevented by writing laws. Few can be caught at the point of purchase by an observant dealer, many cannot.

They take place multiple times a day, all across this nation, every day and they are already illegal and almost entirely undetectable. Making them double-nasty illegal with spit on top... won't affect this.

Frank Ettin
February 1, 2013, 11:15 AM
Note: The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the "straw purchase" case, Abramski v. U. S.. Based on that ruling the following explanation of what constitute a straw purchase under the ATF interpretation reflects current law. See here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=754711) for a discussion of the Abramski ruling.


...LEGALLY (folllowing all rules and regulations) buying 2* guns in my name with the explicit intent of selling 1 of those to a friend (also following all rules and regulations regarding private transfers) can not be considered a straw purchase, ...Wrong.

...A straw purchase is not solely "buying for a prohibited person", but buying on behalf of ANYONE else.....from a licensed dealer. Correct.

The actual offense is violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on the 4473 (specifically about who is the actual buyer), and has nothing to do with the ultimate recipient being a prohibited person.

See the ATF publication Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, 2005, (http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf) at page 165 (emphasis added):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...

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, X 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.

Fryerpower
February 1, 2013, 12:52 PM
You can't regulate that action away, it will occur regardless of what new law is written. Criminal straw purchases cannot be prevented by writing laws... Making them double-nasty illegal with spit on top... won't affect this.
And the current and past failure of the DOJ to effectively prosecute this is a huge part of the problem. I keep bringing this up, but a couple of months ago a teacher in Huntsville, Alabama was sentenced for four counts of straw purchasing, one was an AR-15, to a known felon. What did she get? Two years of probation and six months of electronic monitoring. FAIL!

We don't need new laws on this. Enforce the existing ones!

So back to the thread, I guess I should modify my earlier post to:
"Your buddy should buy two with his own money without ever having talked to you about what he found or asking you if you were interested, test shoot both, pick out the one he likes, and then see if you or anyone else wants to buy the other. Completely legal.


Jim

wildbilll
February 1, 2013, 12:54 PM
Perhaps if, after buying both of these guns, the buyer was to shoot both of them. The buyer would have purchased both guns for the intent of using both of them. Then at some point later, when one of them was sold, it would be a used gun.
That sounds like it walks the line very close, but doesn't seem like a purchase with an immediate transfer to someone else.

smalls
February 1, 2013, 01:03 PM
Perhaps if, after buying both of these guns, the buyer was to shoot both of them. The buyer would have purchased both guns for the intent of using both of them. Then at some point later, when one of them was sold, it would be a used gun.
That sounds like it walks the line very close, but doesn't seem like a purchase with an immediate transfer to someone else.

The buyer doesn't have to shoot if, because what he's doing isn't illegal.

He could walk out to the parking lot and sell it, not illegal.

As long as he's not engaged in the business.

It's not illegal to buy a gun with the intent of selling it, you just can't do it as a regular source of income.

No, we do not have a specific number that determines when we need an FFL to continue to sell guns.

beatledog7
February 1, 2013, 01:22 PM
Until we can read minds, we can't know another's intent unless he somehow documents that intent.

Frank Ettin
February 1, 2013, 02:50 PM
...The buyer doesn't have to shoot if, because what he's doing isn't illegal.

He could walk out to the parking lot and sell it, not illegal...Unless he had made a prior arrangement with the buyer to buy the gun for him (the buyer). In that case it would be an illegal straw purchase, and shooting the gun first wouldn't change that.

It's one thing to buy a gun intending to sell it when you don't have a deal arranged ahead of time. In such a case, you're buying the gun on your own account and taking the risk that you'd find a buyer willing to buy it on terms satisfactory to you. If you don't find a buyer, you'll be stuck with the gun.

But if you've already made a deal with X that he will give you $$ for the gun right after you've purchased it, you're now not really the actual purchaser. You are buying the gun on X's behalf, as his proxy. And that makes it an illegal straw purchase.

...As long as he's not engaged in the business....See this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=699556) for a discussion of that topic.

Until we can read minds, we can't know another's intent unless he somehow documents that intent. Prosecutors prove intent to the satisfaction of jurors (i. e., beyond a reasonable doubt) all the time based on circumstantial evidence, money trails, other characteristics of the action or surrounding activities. Intent is an element of many crimes.

PGT
February 1, 2013, 03:02 PM
this came up recently on another forum when we were trying to find Ruger 22/45 LITE's. They're hard to come by yet Cabela's got a bunch in at various stores (and had them mismarked low by $100 to boot). The simple solution would be for someone local to a Cabelas to buy one and sell it but that qualifies as a straw purchase even if FFL's are involved in the transfer.

Now, I bought one off GB and a few days later found a dealer that had the other color offered (which was my preference). I ordered that one as well and put the first one up for sale. My original intent was to own the first...circumstances changed and I sold it. This is a subtle distinction but could also be misconstrued as a straw transaction (which it was not).

As evidenced by the comments in this thread, there's that "middle ground" where its up for interpretation as to what qualifies as a straw purchase.

Skylerbone
February 1, 2013, 03:17 PM
My question would be if the 4473 is the primary concern and determines who the actual buyer is, could X accept money from Y to pay for G, then, without taking possession, ship G to another FFL where Y could take possession? It makes no difference to most retail outlets who hands over the funds so long as they are sufficient. Any concrete answer?

Frank Ettin
February 1, 2013, 03:26 PM
My question would be if the 4473 is the primary concern and determines who the actual buyer is, could X accept money from Y to pay for G, then, without taking possession, ship G to another FFL where Y could take possession? It makes no difference to most retail outlets who hands over the funds so long as they are sufficient. Any concrete answer? As long as X isn't "buying the gun", i. e., he's not actually filling out a 4473, it wouldn't be a straw purchase. He is merely a courier delivering the money to FFL(1) and directions to ship the gun to FFL(2) for transfer to the actual buyer.

Bubbles
February 1, 2013, 04:21 PM
My question would be if the 4473 is the primary concern and determines who the actual buyer is, could X accept money from Y to pay for G, then, without taking possession, ship G to another FFL where Y could take possession? It makes no difference to most retail outlets who hands over the funds so long as they are sufficient. Any concrete answer?
It depends. ATF has held that "drop shippers" need an FFL; people can be dealers even if they never physically take posession of the firearm. If X pays Y who then pays the dealer, then Y needs an FFL. If X makes a check out to the FFL and Y merely transports it from X to the FFL then there's no problem.

See ATF Procedure 75-3 on page 150 of http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf for more info.

Frank Ettin
February 1, 2013, 05:32 PM
It depends. ATF has held that "drop shippers" need an FFL; people can be dealers even if they never physically take posession of the firearm. If X pays Y who then pays the dealer, then Y needs an FFL. If X makes a check out to the FFL and Y merely transports it from X to the FFL then there's no problem.

See ATF Procedure 75-3 on page 150 of http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf for more info.

Hadn't thought through that wrinkle. Good catch. Thanks.

beatledog7
February 1, 2013, 06:01 PM
Prosecutors prove intent to the satisfaction of jurors (i. e., beyond a reasonable doubt) all the time based on circumstantial evidence, money trails, other characteristics of the action or surrounding activities. Intent is an element of many crimes.

I know this, Frank. Some of the things you list often do remove reasonable doubt regarding intent purely because they are forms of, I'll call it "virtual documentation," that cannot be explained in any other way besides intent to do the crime. But there is also conjecture, and it unfortunately sways many juries.

cluck
February 1, 2013, 06:02 PM
Is dealing without a license.
How about buying two and consigning one at the local FFL?

Frank Ettin
February 1, 2013, 07:27 PM
Is dealing without a license.
How about buying two and consigning one at the local FFL?What does that have to do with straw purchases?

Fryerpower
February 1, 2013, 07:31 PM
How do you handle a group of friends getting together and buying a case of Mosin Nagants?
http://www.classicfirearms.com/mosin-nagant-rfile-by-the-crate
They are sold by the crate of 20 for $2,400 plus shipping. Is there a way to do five forms for one purchase?
Does the Curio and Relic holder of the group just buy them in his name and then split them up once they come in? Is the C&R guy now a straw purchaser or dealer? Seems like buying a case at a time is just setting yourself up for an evil federal colonoscope. I don't know many C&R holders that have any use for an entire crate of rifles. They just want to cherry pick the best of the box to improve their collection and then liquidate the rest.

I AM NOT TRYING TO BE A PAIN. THIS IS A VALID QUESTION THAT RELATES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST.

Jim

Frank Ettin
February 1, 2013, 07:41 PM
How do you handle a group of friends getting together and buying a case of Mosin Nagants?
http://www.classicfirearms.com/mosin...e-by-the-crate
They are sold by the crate of 20 for $2,400 plus shipping. Is there a way to do five forms for one purchase?
Does the Curio and Relic holder of the group just buy them in his name and then split them up once they come in? Is the C&R guy now a straw purchaser or dealer?...As described, whoever fills out the 4473 and answers that he is the actual purchaser has made a false statement on the 4473 and committed a straw purchase.

Frank Ettin
February 1, 2013, 07:52 PM
How do you handle a group of friends getting together and buying a case of Mosin Nagants?
http://www.classicfirearms.com/mosin...e-by-the-crate
They are sold by the crate of 20 for $2,400 plus shipping. Is there a way to do five forms for one purchase?
Does the Curio and Relic holder of the group just buy them in his name and then split them up once they come in? Is the C&R guy now a straw purchaser or dealer?...As described, whoever fills out the 4473 and answers that he is the actual purchaser has made a false statement on the 4473 and committed a straw purchase.Expanding on the foregoing --

If the person purchasing the case has a C&R license and the guns qualify as Curio and Relics (which Mosin Nagants undoubtedly would), he as purchaser does not have to complete a 4473.

However, a C&R license does not authorize the holder to deal in firearms.

So this question raises issues beyond the core straw purchase question asked by the OP. It involves issues of the scope of permissible activities under a C&R license.

Fryerpower
February 1, 2013, 07:59 PM
Good to know.

Conversely, if you buy the case without consulting anyone, do your cherry picking, and then sell the extras you are ok because the intent was not to split the case with friends?

Still feels gray...
Makes you wonder how long you would have to hold them before selling them.
On a safer note you could trade them for other interesting C&R guns, say a Mosin Nagant or three for that Swiss 96/11 that you need for your collection. That should be ok because everything you are doing is for the betterment of your collection.

I guess the only way for the OP to make it work is to let the other guy know about the great deal on the gun and go through the FFL to FFL process.

Jim

Sam1911
February 1, 2013, 08:21 PM
Conversely, if you buy the case without consulting anyone, do your cherry picking, and then sell the extras you are ok because the intent was not to split the case with friends?Can't be a straw purchase.

COULD be dealing without a license. Clear distinction between the two issues, but there is never a solid answer to the second. Best bet is to keep that sort of thing very minimal.

Read this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=699556) for more on that, especially Frank's comments and Bubbles' post at the end.

john wall
February 1, 2013, 08:55 PM
Having been in the business a long time, I have seen "buyer's remorse" occur quickly, actually "buyer's WIFE'S remorse", where a hapless henpecked soul comes back to the shop in a hurry wanting his money back. LOL

Fryerpower
February 1, 2013, 09:10 PM
Expanding on the foregoing --

If the person purchasing the case has a C&R license and the guns qualify as Curio and Relics (which Mosin Nagants undoubtedly would), he as purchaser does not have to complete a 4473.

However, a C&R license does not authorize the holder to deal in firearms.

So this question raises issues beyond the core straw purchase question asked by the OP. It involves issues of the scope of permissible activities under a C&R license.

Excellent point! No 4473 - No way to make a false statement about who the guns are for!

The dealer/betterment of the collection route of thought should be, and most likely has been, dealth with in another thread.

Jim

saturno_v
February 5, 2013, 07:32 PM
It happened to me that I re-sold two guns (years apart between each other) basically few days after, and both at a loss (albeit small one)

The first time I decided I did not need a fourth Mosin Nagant after all, and the second time I impulse-bought a Chiappa 1911-22 and playing with it in the evening I decided that I did not want to own a zinc junk gun so I was able to sell it couple of days later unfired.


Are these two instances could potentially leading to a straw purchase accusation even if clearly there was no intent??

How ATF track down straw man purchases if there is no obligation in some states to record private firearm transactions??

bigfatdave
February 5, 2013, 07:41 PM
How ATF track downthey don't.
they don't even bother to prosecute the felons who attempt to buy guns with a 4473, they surely aren't trying to track down every random private sale, the concept is laughable

Frank Ettin
February 5, 2013, 08:24 PM
...Are these two instances could potentially leading to a straw purchase accusation even if clearly there was no intent??...Beats me. But underlying law is pretty thoroughly discussed in the Sticky Sam referenced. Perhaps you'll be able to work it out for yourself.

...How ATF track down straw man purchases if there is no obligation in some states to record private firearm transactions??There are all kinds of ways that crimes get discovered and perpetrators caught and convicted. Sometime crimes don't get discovered and sometimes they do.

Frank Ettin
February 5, 2013, 11:55 PM
...Are these two instances could potentially leading to a straw purchase accusation even if clearly there was no intent??...Beats me. But underlying law is pretty thoroughly discussed in the Sticky Sam referenced. Perhaps you'll be able to work it out for yourself. Oops, sorry. I thought this was a different thread.

Anyway, this is the Sticky, and I think if saturno goes back over it, he'll be able to decide if he has "straw purchase" problems.

Bubbles
February 6, 2013, 11:50 AM
How ATF track down straw man purchases if there is no obligation in some states to record private firearm transactions??
If you look at the cases were people do get prosecuted, it's primarily because the flipped firearms end up seized and traced as part of a criminal investigation.

Now, if you're a guy who buys from an FFL and then sells to private buyers, and only one trace ever ends with you (er, I sold it, can't remember who to, I didn't keep the bill of sale sorry), then it's probably not an issue. OTOH if several traces in a short time span end with you, then you very likely will have a problem.

Carl N. Brown
February 6, 2013, 12:17 PM
The purchaser on the 4473 must be the bona fide good faith actual purchaser of the firearm for their own use. (A buyer of a gift to a non-prohibited person is a buyer in good faith for their own use--that use being as a gift).

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.

Aceoky
February 15, 2013, 02:20 PM
As described, whoever fills out the 4473 and answers that he is the actual purchaser has made a false statement on the 4473 and committed a straw purchase.

What about spouse buying for another etc. Say the wife is at the gun store and she calls you and says they just got in "X" would you like it for your b-day?

Skylerbone
February 15, 2013, 02:25 PM
From post #49:

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.

Aceoky
February 15, 2013, 02:52 PM
Yes I read that, however he had also stated words to the effect of IF you buy it knowing you were asked to "pick one up" etc. So my question is not if she sees it and wants to buy it for you, rather she CALLS you and asks you IF you would like to have it- probably the same but it's made me curious

Sam1911
February 15, 2013, 03:09 PM
Yes I read that, however he had also stated words to the effect of IF you buy it knowing you were asked to "pick one up" etc. So my question is not if she sees it and wants to buy it for you, rather she CALLS you and asks you IF you would like to have it- probably the same but it's made me curious
There are clearly some grey areas. But there's probably no practical need to scrutinize this quite that closely.

And in some ways the "follow the money" answer is pretty useful. If someone buys it for you with their money and gives it to you, with no compensation -- that's a gift.

If someone gives you $500 and tells you to go buy them a Glock, that's not a gift.

If your wife uses money from your joint checking account to buy you a gun...just don't worry about "if it is or if it ain't." That's not going to end up in court.

Aceoky
February 15, 2013, 04:31 PM
Thanks!!!

-Xero-
March 10, 2013, 09:25 PM
========================= This site needs a delete option ========

Sam1911
March 10, 2013, 09:52 PM
I decided to give a rifle to a nephew who lives in another state. Technically, interstate transfer between private parties is not lawful. So it's not really "his" rifle. It's my rifle and I've loaned it to him in perpetuity. Yikes. Please don't admit to things like this on public web sites (too late now, of course).

The law regarding this type of transfer involves who possesses the gun, not who bought it or whether it was "officially" sold or "officially" given or not.

To quote NavyLCDR on this:


There is also debate as to whether a person can accept a loan of a firearm from a person outside their own state of residence because there is no loaning exception in 18 USC 922 (a)(3):

§ 922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph

(A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State,

(B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and

(C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

It would seem like if you, from out of state, come to my state, I can loan you a firearm in my state....but it seems like it would be illegal for you to accept that loaned firearm in your state.

Frank Ettin
March 11, 2013, 02:43 AM
Here, let's turn this into a hypothetical -- Your employer gives you $$$ for work performed. You use the money given to you by your employer to purchase a firearm. Is your employer buying the firearm?...As you posit the question, the answer would appear to be "no." But as I'll outline in more detail, you really have no clue what you're talking about.

The law regarding straw purchases is discussed in detail in post 23. I suggest you review this thread completely and in detail until you understand it. In the meantime, please refrain from posting erroneous, unsupported information.

It's also evident that you don't understand the law. You should avoid attempting to provide advice on legal matters when you're not qualified to do so and when your misinformation, if followed, could put someone in serious legal jeopardy.

...Your friend gives you the cash to purchase the firearm he's lawfully entitled to own. You purchase the gun. Is the gun for you? YES, you're the purchaser. Is it intended as a purchase to be sold to someone else? Doesn't matter, you're still the purchaser. Reselling or transferring the gun at a later time is lawful... Nope. See post 23. If you are buying the gun at an FFL with money given to you (or promised to you) by another for the purpose of transferring it to that person, in the eyes of the law you are not the actual purchaser. You are buying the gun on behalf of, as the agent or proxy for, that person.

If you were to then claim of the 4473 to be the actual purchaser, you would be violating 18 USC 922(a)(6).

..."Straw purchase" would be when you enter into the transfer as a "straw man" for someone else with the INTENT to conceal or otherwise fraudulently acquire the firearm for another buyer....Wrong again. See post 23.

...CURRENTLY no law prohibits transfer of firearms between private parties without a background check. Obie, Joe, and Dianne want to put a stop to that. This thread is part of the reason the "universal background check" system is not going to work... Also wrong.

The laws in many States require no formalities in connection with a private transfer of a gun from one resident of the State to another resident of that State. But federal generally prohibits (with a couple of narrow exceptions) any transfer of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another. Furthermore, a number of States require certain formalities, including background checks, in connection with intrastate transfers.

...I decided to give a rifle to a nephew who lives in another state. Technically, interstate transfer between private parties is not lawful. So it's not really "his" rifle. It's my rifle and I've loaned it to him in perpetuity... Garbage.

Let's look at the applicable statutes:

18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:(a) It shall be unlawful—
...

(3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...


And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:(a) It shall be unlawful—
...

(5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest ..., and

(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;..

You may go to another State where (under 18 USC 922(a)(5)) a friend may loan you a gun to, for example, go target shooting together, or an outfitter may rent you a gun for a guided hunt. But if you were to take the gun back to your home State with you, you would be violating 18 USC 922(a)(3), which has no "loan" exception, thus becoming eligible for five years in federal prison and a lifetime loss of gun rights. Since there is no loan" exception in 18 USC 922(a)(3), a load of a firearm may not cross state lines to the borrower's State of residence.

...Texas used to have a law (1967) prohibiting sales of handguns. The dealer would provide you a handgun with a "99 year lease." I do believe there was a clause that after 99 yrs the item becomes "community property" of the person possessing the gun. ...Balderdash!

Let's see some good evidence such as the proper citation to the law.


Your "community property" statement is preposterous. Community property refers to property within a marriage (and only in a State using the community property system for marital property -- like Texas).

Deadclown
July 10, 2013, 09:01 PM
I'm glad I read this post. I happen to live in NY where Cuomo decided that only criminals own firearms. Thanks to his blinding genius the Saiga 12 shotgun is banned here unless already owned or whatever.
I happen to be considered a LEO (NYC Correction Dept.) and having some exemptions on owning what they call an "assault weapon", was considering trying to obtain said firearm from another state by buying it from a family member and having it shipped (if possible) to an FFL here. But I see that more than likely that would be considered illegal seeing as no one in my family owns one and they sure as hell wouldn't "gift" it to me unless they were going to get their money back.

NavyLCDR
July 16, 2013, 12:25 PM
I'm glad I read this post. I happen to live in NY where Cuomo decided that only criminals own firearms. Thanks to his blinding genius the Saiga 12 shotgun is banned here unless already owned or whatever.
I happen to be considered a LEO (NYC Correction Dept.) and having some exemptions on owning what they call an "assault weapon", was considering trying to obtain said firearm from another state by buying it from a family member and having it shipped (if possible) to an FFL here. But I see that more than likely that would be considered illegal seeing as no one in my family owns one and they sure as hell wouldn't "gift" it to me unless they were going to get their money back.

Wow, did you bring up an interesting twist/grey area. I can't get a certain firearm in my location (even though it is completely legal for me to own), so someone buys it for me in their area, but they don't transfer the gun to me directly, they ship it to an FFL for transfer to me. So, technically, by the letter of the law, they performed a straw purchase, and yet, I ended up with the gun, with the NICS check, with a form 4473 completed and signed by me, and the transfer approved. Interesting....

Frank Ettin
July 16, 2013, 12:57 PM
...you bring up an interesting twist/grey area. I can't get a certain firearm in my location (even though it is completely legal for me to own), so someone buys it for me in their area, but they don't transfer the gun to me directly, they ship it to an FFL for transfer to me. So, technically, by the letter of the law, they performed a straw purchase, and yet, I ended up with the gun, with the NICS check, with a form 4473 completed and signed by me, and the transfer approved. Interesting....It's not so much a gray area as it is, perhaps, a bizarre result.

The actual federal crime is violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on the 4473 -- specifically a false statement as to the actual purchaser is. So if A arranges with B for B to buy a gun on his (A's) behalf, B is legally not the actual buyer. Rather B is buying the gun on behalf of A, as A's agent or proxy. So if B claims of the 4473 to be the actual purchaser, he has made a false statement, in violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), on the 4473 (and if he doesn't, he won't get the gun).

The federal crime is committed when B makes the false statement. That's not necessarily cured when A receives the gun on another 4473. It has been suggested that B could perhaps avoid criminal responsibility for the false statement because the subsequent transfer on a 4473 makes that false statement immaterial. That's an interesting theory, but I'm unaware that it has every been supported by a federal court. Testing the theory in court would be an expensive and high risk proposition.

Sam1911
July 16, 2013, 01:01 PM
There is a fairly common perception on gun boards that if you pass the gun through a dealer it renders moot whatever arrangements or transactions transpired before. Sort of "gun laundering" if you will. Frank's suggestion here is that this is not necessarily so.

Hanzo581
July 16, 2013, 01:32 PM
I ran into a strange issue (well not so much strange now looking at the laws posted). Was with the wife in a gun store looking at something (it was years ago, I think it was a Kel-tec SU16). I decided I wanted it. Looked for my voter ID and noticed I didn't have it on me, outside of my license that's all I would have had for the second form of ID. So I told the guy that my wife would be the one filling out the form as she had all the proper ID on her.....well he flew into this big rant about straw purchases and of course refused the sale.

I was thinking in my head, our money is in the same account, technically everything I own is half hers anyway so technically she is buying it for herself....bah, all these laws that only complicate things for law abiding citizens.

Sam1911
July 16, 2013, 01:37 PM
Ironically, if she said, "I'm buying this gun as a gift for my husband here..." the clerk would have had no real reason to refuse. That's perfectly legal.

But no, saying "I'm going to buy this gun...no, wait, she's going to buy this gun for me," isn't going to fly. Some clerks will see a married couple sorting out their joint finances and turn a blind eye, but there's a risk for them in that the law is pretty specific that they shouldn't do that.

Frank Ettin
July 16, 2013, 03:05 PM
...Some clerks will see a married couple sorting out their joint finances and turn a blind eye, but there's a risk for them in that the law is pretty specific that they shouldn't do that.We can't expect an FFL to do something which he thinks might put his license/livelihood on the line.

NavyLCDR
July 17, 2013, 01:38 AM
Ironically, if she said, "I'm buying this gun as a gift for my husband here..." the clerk would have had no real reason to refuse. That's perfectly legal.

But no, saying "I'm going to buy this gun...no, wait, she's going to buy this gun for me," isn't going to fly. Some clerks will see a married couple sorting out their joint finances and turn a blind eye, but there's a risk for them in that the law is pretty specific that they shouldn't do that.
We can't expect an FFL to do something which he thinks might put his license/livelihood on the line.

And, we also have every opportunity to go to a dealer who isn't afraid to engage in a legal firearms transaction. For example - I get military orders to state A and my wife lives in state A with me. For the purposes of firearms transactions both my wife and I are residents of state A. I can prove residency to the FFL via my military orders and military ID card, but my wife cannot because all she has is her driver's license from our home of record state (state B). State A law allows her to keep her state B driver's license.

On more than one occasion we have gone into different retail stores and she has picked out a handgun that she likes by handling the different handguns and picking the one she wants. I have purchased the handgun right there on the spot as a gift to her. I signed the form 4473, NICS check on me, personal check from our joint checking account signed by me, she walks out of the gun store with the gun in a case in her possession. All perfectly legal.

However, I would not begrudge an FFL for refusing that transaction even though it is perfectly legal. I would just walk down the street and hope I could get the same price at a dealer that doesn't have any qualms about it.

At least in my family it is fairly common for us to pick out our own Christmas, birthday or just "I love you" gifts. "I want to buy you a computer for your birthday, but I want you to have the one that you want, so you tell me which one you want."

I know this is not the same scenario presented in post #58 because my wife never paid me for the gun I bought for her as a gift.

Bubbles
July 26, 2013, 09:17 PM
Here's a recent prosecution for it:
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/police-officer-gun-store-owner-charged-with-illegal-purchases/-/20128466/21180932/-/10c1qbk/-/index.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_610016365685474_6447523_610144579005986#f26a9de0bb5b406

Frank Ettin
October 15, 2013, 02:46 PM
The Supreme Court has taken a case dealing with a straw purchase. It's under discussion in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=731794).

351 WINCHESTER
December 4, 2013, 08:49 PM
A law enforcement officer buys 2 glock 40's. One for his Dad and the other for his brother. Both are legal to own, but wanted to take advantage of glock's blue box discounts. Money changes hands and transfer of ownership from the leo to the Dad and brother is completed.

The leo lied on the 4473. Does that make him a felon?

Frank Ettin
December 4, 2013, 09:16 PM
...The leo lied on the 4473. Does that make him a felon? As of this moment the answer would be "yes", definitely in States in the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and possibly in others as well, except those in the Fifth Circuit.

But we'll know for sure nationwide most likely by the end of this year. See post 67.

NavyLCDR
December 4, 2013, 09:55 PM
As of this moment the answer would be "yes".

Not until he is convicted. Until he is convicted he is just someone who has allegedly committed a felony.

Frank Ettin
December 4, 2013, 10:09 PM
Not until he is convicted. Until he is convicted he is just someone who has allegedly committed a felony. 351 WINCHESTER posited a hypothetical. The acts described in the hypothetical constitute the elements of a felony under federal law (at least in the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits).

351 WINCHESTER
December 4, 2013, 11:43 PM
This straw purchase actually happened. I told my friend that his son (leo) could get in trouble and loose his job for lying on the 4473. He told me that his son could legally purchase and transfer ownership of the pistols, but since money was given to the leo by the Dad and brother the intent to circumvent the law was quite evident imho.

Now, If I bought a gun and gave it to my son that would be ok.

Kuyong_Chuin
January 22, 2014, 06:50 PM
Is this situation legal? And no I did not do this and would never do so. It is hypothetical question. A son-in-law talks his father in law into purchasing a handgun for him and the paperwork shows that the son in law is the purchaser the father in law just paid for it. The son in law brings how the gun shoots 1 Mag through the weapon then proceeded to place an ad online the same day to sell the gun. He finds a buyer a few days later online and meets him late at night makes the transfer face to face. Is this legal to do and if not what laws were broken?

Sam1911
January 22, 2014, 07:33 PM
Yes, that is legal, though it appears you've got two issues tied up in one question.

A) It is legal for the son-in-law to buy that gun. That his F-I-L gave him the money really isn't the question. Now, it could become the question, as the dealer could easily misconstrue the situation and deny the sale. The "who's money" question gets sketchy because it could look like the FIL is the real buyer and the SIL is purchasing it FOR the FIL. Best not to get into who's money it is while standing there at the dealer's counter as that just muddles the matter.

SO...what should really happen in that case is the FIL buys the gun and fills out the paperwork. HE is the buyer. He then GIVES the gun outright to his SIL. That's perfectly legal. Buying a firearm yourself, with the purpose of giving it as a gift is perfectly lawful.

Fronting the money for someone else to buy a gun FOR YOU is where this runs afoul of the law.

B) So he sold it again quickly? Not a problem. He was still the purchaser. The gun was still FOR HIM. He shot it and didn't like it? He didn't shoot it but decided he didn't want it? He had a bad dream about guns and decided to sell it the next morning? Whatever. That's all fine and legal.

Now, do that 10 times and come to the attention of the BATFE, and you're likely to be answering questions about "dealing in firearms without a license" -- but the transactions as described in this one scenario are lawful.

Kuyong_Chuin
January 22, 2014, 07:45 PM
Yes, that is legal, though it appears you've got two issues tied up in one question.

A) It is legal for the son-in-law to buy that gun. That his F-I-L gave him the money really isn't the question. Now, it could become the question, as the dealer could easily misconstrue the situation and deny the sale. The "who's money" question gets sketchy because it could look like the FIL is the real buyer and the SIL is purchasing it FOR the FIL. Best not to get into who's money it is while standing there at the dealer's counter as that just muddles the matter.

SO...what should really happen in that case is the FIL buys the gun and fills out the paperwork. HE is the buyer. He then GIVES the gun outright to his SIL. That's perfectly legal. Buying a firearm yourself, with the purpose of giving it as a gift is perfectly lawful.

Fronting the money for someone else to buy a gun FOR YOU is where this runs afoul of the law.

B) So he sold it again quickly? Not a problem. He was still the purchaser. The gun was still FOR HIM. He shot it and didn't like it? He didn't shoot it but decided he didn't want it? He had a bad dream about guns and decided to sell it the next morning? Whatever. That's all fine and legal.

Now, do that 10 times and come to the attention of the BATFE, and you're likely to be answering questions about "dealing in firearms without a license" -- but the transactions as described in this one scenario are lawful.
Thanks Sam.

Frank Ettin
January 22, 2014, 07:45 PM
Of course there's also the question of whether the private sale without formalities was legal under state law. There are a number of States in which it would not be.

There is also the question of whether under all the circumstances the seller might have had reasonable cause to believe either that the buyer was not a resident of the seller's State or that the buyer was a prohibited person. That would involve a violation of federal (and probably state) law.

But all that really doesn't raise straw purchase issues.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is a "Straw Purchase?" (see post 23)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!