Why don't they add a box for 'Gift' when you purchase a firearm?

So if my 12 year old son worked all summer and gave me the money to buy him a rifle, I cannot legally do this?

Where I am you have to be 18+ to buy a rifle but you can be under 18 to possess and use it (with parental supervision of course).

Ok more questions - what if you used the barter system? They buy a gun for you and you give them say a riding lawnmower? Or somesuch exchange.

In that case, there is no record of a purchase (even cash has no record).

Also, is the straw purchaser the one they prosecute or the person they bought it for or both?

(Thinking about recent California mass shooting issue here where the straw purchaser is on trial and if the shooters were still alive would thy be tried under the straw issue in addition to their crimes?)

crazysquirrel said:

So if my 12 year old son worked all summer and gave me the money to buy him a rifle, I cannot legally do this?

Where I am you have to be 18+ to buy a rifle but you can be under 18 to possess and use it (with parental supervision of course).

Click to expand...

I would tend to think... If a person must be 18+ in your state to "buy" a rifle, then you cannot legally sell the rifle to your son. That would be one violation, and maybe the major one... selling a firearm to a prohibited person. Yes, I would think that this is also a straw purchase.

Someone else can chime in with more knowledgable information.

Warp said:

I'm not sure it's illegal for a person to buy one gun with the intention of selling it. Example that has been given...you see a severely under valued gun at a garage sale or pawn shop or wherever else, buy it, then go find a knowledgeable buyer/collector who just has to have it and make a profit...that isn't necessarily illegal (I am not a lawyer!). This would be the "in the business of" thing.

A straw purchase would be...you buy the gun with the money from somebody else, or you buy the gun with the intention of somebody else reimbursing you for it, then you meet them in the parking lot.

Click to expand...

Except that a judge could easily decide that someone buying from a store with the specific intent to resell to someone five minutes later to make a profit is in the business of selling firearms.

They could also say that since you met someone in the parking lot of the store you bought it from directly after the purchase that there is a strong possibility that you went in after making an agreement with the buyer.

Whether or not you actually did know the person or have an agreement prior is irrelevent. The opinion of the court could net you a conviction based on suspect circumstances.

Think about it. If you see someone walk out of a gun store and immediately trade the gun they bought for cash, are you going to believe they don't know eachother? I have heard of people being charged for selling the gun to someone the same day, I can't imagine a judge is likely to rule in your favor if you sell it in the parking lot.

Now is it likely? Not really. It isn't likely that a police officer will see the transaction or that anyone would report it. Is it stupid and treading the line of what is actually legal? Definitely.

Judges don't convict people.

Really? I strictly remember being in court last month when an immediate family member being convicted of illegally carrying a firearm by a judge last month. Unless there was some sort of secret panel communicating to that judge behind the scenes I'd say that sometimes judges do convict people.

I'm assuming that since these would be felony charges it would be a jury trial. A jury that will not look at a guy who sells a gun ten minutes after he leaves a building in a favorable light. A good prosecutor and it'd be hard to defend you.

It's better to be smart than cross your fingers and hope not to get screwed by the system because of a stupid decision.

Sam1911 said:

Judges don't convict people.

Click to expand...

Technically, no. However, they can convict people in their own minds, and then break the law in ways to force a conviction. Yes, I have seen it happen.

Not a jury? I'm surprised, but ok. In the case of a federal firearms criminal trial, yes there'd be a jury. And your attorney would be working hard to show them that you had no prior contact with the buyer and no agreement, bought the gun for yourself, but someone else offered you more, or you had buyer's remorse, or whatever. How much proof of anything either side could dig up would be pretty important. Whether you'd be convicted or exonerated would be certainly no sure thing and being inside that courtroom would be something absolutely to avoid.

Sam1911 said:

Not a jury? I'm surprised, but ok. In the case of a federal firearms criminal trial, yes there'd be a jury. And your attorney would be working hard to show them that you had no prior contact with the buyer and no agreement, bought the gun for yourself, but someone else offered you more, or you had buyer's remorse, or whatever. How much proof of anything either side could dig up would be pretty important. Whether you'd be convicted or exonerated would be certainly no sure thing and being inside that courtroom would be something absolutely to avoid.

Click to expand...

It was a jury who did the actual conviction, but the judge did and said many things that tipped his hand that he had made his own "conviction" in his mind. His breaking of several laws forced the jury into making the final conviction.

I agree with everything you said. The short answer is: it's not a road you want to go down! Avoid, like the Plague, gray areas and thin lines.

It was a jury who did the actual conviction, but the judge did and said many things that tipped his hand that he had made his own "conviction" in his mind. His breaking of several laws forced the jury into making the final conviction.

Click to expand...

Wait, you were there at Kiln's family member's trial?

And you know the circumstances under which the judge acted? And that he acted illegally?

You should report that! Better make sure your information is sound and credible, but a judge acting illegally is the sort of thing that makes the national news!

Sam1911 said:

Wait, you were there at Kiln's family member's trial?

And you know the circumstances under which the judge acted? And that he acted illegally?

You should report that! Better make sure your information is sound and credible, but a judge acting illegally is the sort of thing that makes the national news!

Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry... Mine was a separate event. Unrelated to Kiln's experience.

Oh! Ok. That was weird for a minute.

Sam1911 said:

Oh! Ok. That was weird for a minute.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that... I kinda jumped into the middle of someone else's story with an account of my own. I can understand the confusion

Rifle not illegal to have for 12 year old to have, just illegal to buy (directly?)

Of course who is dumb enough to TELL the government you are getting a gun for your kid and them reimbursing you for it?

Now explain to me exactly WHERE in the constitution does it say when you get your gun rights or any other rights? I cannot find it anywhere in there.

Kids 12 years old have constitutional rights (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th, and others I think).

But why give them some and not all (2nd)?

If we went with maturity levels, age 25 (according to car insurance companies) is the age that people become mature. Why not grant constitutional rights at that age and not earlier?

Isn't it important to consider the intent of the purchaser as well as the recipient of a firearm when gifting, trading or even face to face buying and selling ? If the buyer of the firearm is prohibited from purchasing a firearm, whether they might pass the background check or not, then the buyer is committing an illegal purchase. Same if the seller knows the sale is illegal. The intent of avoiding the scrutiny of the background check is why straw purchases are frowned upon.

Isn't it important to consider the intent of the purchaser as well as the recipient of a firearm when gifting, trading or even face to face buying and selling ?

Click to expand...

Important, for whom to consider that?
If you mean law enforcement, then sure. If a buyer is purchasing a firearm to use him/herself, or is purchasing a firearm as a gift for someone else, that is not a straw purchase. Period.

If they are buying that gun because someone else told them to and is going to reimburse them, than it IS a straw purchase. Period. Whether the two parties involved are prohibited from possessing a firearm is irrelevant to that.

If the buyer of the firearm is prohibited from purchasing a firearm, whether they might pass the background check or not, then the buyer is committing an illegal purchase.

Click to expand...

Of course.

Same if the seller knows the sale is illegal.

Click to expand...

Yes.

The intent of avoiding the scrutiny of the background check is why straw purchases are frowned upon.

Click to expand...

Well...ostensibly that is true. But it really is irrelevant to the law. The act itself is illegal, regardless of the underlying reason for committing the act.