627PCFan
Member
Im confused. If I go to a gun show and buy a 1911 I take it to the range that day and say hey, this isnt manly enough, I need a 460SW and sell the 1911 the next day is that a straw purchase?
Saw an attempted straw purchase at gun show
- Thread starter Armymutt
- Start date
- Status
Arkansas Paul
Member
no.
Twmaster
Member
Yes.
Bill Jones
Member
...
Last edited:
NavyLCDR
member
The ATF says otherwise:
http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf
Page 165:
Immaterial - unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant
The brother-in-law receives money from the sister-in-law for the specific purpose of purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The brother-in-law purchases the firearm, on behalf of the sister-in-law (the reason for him purchasing the firearm on her behalf is irrelevent), and gives the gun to the sister-in-law. Straw purchase. Period. The sister-in-law than gifts the firearm to her husband, which would be perfectly legal to do, in most states.
Last edited:
It's an example of a law with good intentions (keep people from saying "hey, I can't legally buy this, can you buy it for me?") that is difficult to enforce (hard to prove unless the salesman hears you) and causes complications for otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Which we all three have no criminal history.
sherman123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 395
To be honest I wish we could do away with background checks altogether.
Basically a kid waa looking at a handgun. I guess the kid was under 21 and the dealer told him no. The kid went and found some guy standing near the table. The dealer watched all this. The guy walks up and asks to buy the gun. Dealer asks if it is for the kid. The guy says yes. Dealer asks if he is the kid's father. The guy says no. Dealer explains a straw purchase. The guy then goes on to say "What if I buy it for myself and then sell it later?" Dealer tells him that he's already told him that he wasn't buying it for himself and that he won't be selling it to him.
Inebriated
Member
You really wish free people would be denied their right to buy a firearm?Armymutt said:
EDIT - oh, even better, you wish a man buying a gun for his son would be prosecuted..... That's good to know.
What I do not understand about the SCOTUS case is the FFL. When the gun was taken to the FFL he enters it into their bound book.
Wasn't the gun transferred to the FFL (legal) and then to the second party through the process of the background check (legal)?
Or, can a FFL run a background check without a sale of theirs involved?
To my non-legal mind, A gave B money to buy a gun. B bought the gun and transferred ownership to FFL. FFL transferred ownership to A, following the law. Seems like the FFL would break the chain.
Wasn't the gun transferred to the FFL (legal) and then to the second party through the process of the background check (legal)?
Or, can a FFL run a background check without a sale of theirs involved?
To my non-legal mind, A gave B money to buy a gun. B bought the gun and transferred ownership to FFL. FFL transferred ownership to A, following the law. Seems like the FFL would break the chain.
Sigh!
Current law, at least in the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuit is discussed in detail in this thread.
However, there is currently a case in the Supreme Court which might change that. The case is discussed here and here.
There is just too much misinformation in this thread to begin to try to correct it all. So I'm closing the thread. Anyone who is interested in the subject can have a look at the material in the threads I've linked to.
Current law, at least in the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuit is discussed in detail in this thread.
However, there is currently a case in the Supreme Court which might change that. The case is discussed here and here.
There is just too much misinformation in this thread to begin to try to correct it all. So I'm closing the thread. Anyone who is interested in the subject can have a look at the material in the threads I've linked to.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That's a common misconception. Transferring through an FFL is not a "money laundering" type operation that erases what came before. The straw purchase violation is what happens right at the moment when someone buys a gun on behalf of some other person, and lies on the 4473 form by saying that s/he is the actual purchaser. Taking it to a dealer later on and doing a transfer doesn't erase or mitigate that action.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
