A couple questions RE Straw purchases

[MikePGS]

I have a couple of scenarios i'm pondering and am curious as to whether or not they would be considered straw purchases.

Someone I know who lives out of state is searching for a particular gun and can not find it anywhere nearby. A dealer who is local to me has said gun, for a good price. If I were to legally purchase this gun, and then legally sell it to the out of state person, and legally ship it to his FFL dealer who would (again) legally determine whether or not he was allowed to purchase said gun, would that constitute a straw purchase?


Secondly. There is a gun at a local shop for a price that is much lower than I have seen it anywhere else. If I were to buy said gun for the express purchase of reselling it to someone (not anyone specific, but in the future... as an investment sort of thing) would that be legal? Also would buying and "flipping" two guns in a short period of time raise suspicions and possibly cause me legal difficulties? I know this all sounds paranoid probably, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

 

[Glockman17366]

First: As long as you go through FFL's, you should not have a problem. It might be easier just to give your friend your FFL's phone number so he or she can work the deal directly.

Second: Shouldn't be a problem (other then you might lose money on the reselling). Just do all dealing through an FFL.

 

[P90shooter]

Glockman is right on the money. However I like to think the second scenario is a great example of capitalism, buy cheap sell high. If you are truely in doubt the dont do it. Based upon what you said about you have all your bases covered.

Regards

 

[Oro]

Like GlockMan said, in the first scenario, the smart thing to do is to call your friend and have him call the dealer in question with the gun for sale. He can purchase it directly, save the state sales tax, and have it shipped directly to his FFL. FFL's can ship USPS flat rate mail, so it's less than the tax you'd pay, and $70 less than the shipping you'd pay to his FFL (assuming handgun shipping rates, long guns are cheaper). You getting in the middle makes no sense unless he would be banned from purchasing, and you are setting up a straw purchase.

In the second scenario, you are fine. "Dealing" and just jumping on a good deal are two different things. No problem.

 

[MikePGS]

Ahhh very good, thank all of you fine gentlemen.

 

[hksw]

I can't see any problem with #1 as the friend will go through an FFL to obtain it, but, I'm not the ATF.

#2, however, is, IMO, walking on a very fine line. Folks certainly do buy guns as investments. However, buying and selling frequently will get you in trouble. There was a case in NE OH a few years ago of private individuals buying firearms, use them, get bored with them, then sell them on a somewhat regularly basis, enough to rent tables at gun shows to sell their wears. They eventually came under investigation by ATF as dealing without a license. In short, OK to do, just don't do it regularly.

 

[RDak]

Interesting answers.

I don't know for sure but I always thought scenario one would be a strawman purchase. The outstate buyer could go through his local FFL and the OP could help his friend maybe by putting a downpayment on the gun (for his friend) if time was a problem.

The second scenario is a no-no if you say, "I intended to immediately resell from the start". If you held the firearm(s) for a couple of years and then decided to sell, that ain't the same thing IMHO.

For example, a number of years ago I bought an old 1911 through an outstate FFL and, within one month, I just didn't like it. (There was no misrepresentation on the part of the outstate FFL.) A friend of mine said he would buy it from me. I sold it to him after only holding it one month for the price I paid, minus the cost of tightening up the slide. But I didn't intend to sell it when I bought it. So I would think, in this example, it wasn't a straw purchase?

Do you guys agree? (I'm no expert on these types of things.)

 

[SMMAssociates]

RDak:

I have the feeling that the ATF - especially the "new" ATF, courtesy of bHo - will take a dim view of the deposit, although I don't see anything really wrong with it - your friend should pay the dealer full price, and have the dealer refund your deposit, though. That becomes a bribe .... Otherwise, in that scenario, the out-of-state buyer should go through FFL's at both ends. IANAL, but if you don't take possession of the gun, AND don't fill out the forms, it's not a straw purchase. It's not a purchase at all.... You and the out-of-state person can argue about who gets reimbursed if the sale blows up.

Buying a gun without the intent to immediately sell it (unless it's an S&W Sigma ) should always be safe. (Until we're forced to buy cleaning supplies at an FFL....) The major issue of the Straw Man is when the intended recipient can't pass the background check and you know it, as I see it. Bloomie hornswoggled some dealers into pleading guilty to doing THAT as if it was a violation, even though the "straw" individual was able to pass the background check. May he rot in hell....

It appears that loaning a friend the price of a gun, if he does the paperwork, may also be iffy, on the assumption that the loaner isn't qualified. This might get the VISA folks arrested .... IANAL, though.

Regards,

 

[green country shooter]

Buying for the purpose of reselling is dealing.

Dealing requires a license.

I wouldn't do either one of the the things you mention.

Dealing without a license is not necessarily the same thing as a straw man purchase, but both are federal crimes, for different reasons. If you are buying for someone else you are lying on the form 4473. That is a crime # 1. If you are buying with the intention of reselling, you are dealing, which is crime # 2.

 

[Glockman17366]

I think some of you men are over analyzing the OP's post.

As long as all buyers go through an FFL to ensure they can legally possess, there's no laws being broken here.

 

[waterhouse]

I think some of you men are over analyzing the OP's post.

As long as all buyers go through an FFL to ensure they can legally possess, there's no laws being broken here.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple, based on the letter of the law. What you are saying follows common sense. . . gun laws don't usually do this. In fact, the very reason these scenarios are strawman purchases is that an FFL dealer is involved on the purchasing end.

First, some definitions are in order. There is no law on the books concerning a "strawman purchase." If you read the 4473 completely, the section above where you sign states that any misrepresentation on the 4473 is Felony Perjury under federal law. Felony. Don't ever get to own a gun again.

A "strawman purchase" is just the ATF's way of saying "perjury when filling out the 4473 to buy a gun."

If the OP saw the gun in the local paper, he could go buy it in a gas station parking lot, not fill out any paperwork, and then sell it to his buddy and ship it to his buddy's FFL. Then no laws would be broken.

The second he checks the "yes" box on question 11.a "are you the actual buyer of the firearm listed on this form . . .?" and signs the bottom of the 4473, if the gun is really for his friend, it is a strawman purchase (unless he intends to gift it to his friend, which is an exception to the rule.)

To sum it up, the first scenario is a straw purchase. It is easily avoided, as Oro pointed out, by just having the friend call the dealer and buy it directly.

 

[Millwright]

Has anyone thought about the implications of all of the forgoing ? What is proposed - if everyone is honest, at least - shouldn't be an issue. But thanks to a lot of garbage gun law its become a legal quagmire.

No, repeat NO, criminal pays more than cursory attention to gun laws. So IPOF all gun laws are directed at putative legal purchasers. IOW the scumbags get guns, ( and free legal counsel post operandis) while citizens are faced with innumerable complex hurdles violation of which could ruin their lives.

Why not be a "criminall" fer chrissakes ? >MW

 

[Duke of Doubt]

BATFE has been pretty lax in recent years about abuse of C&R licenses and unlicensed dealing. Had the economy not tanked and a lot of "collecting" traffic been reduced, I would have expected a crackdown at some point. It's still abused. Buying a gun because of the extraordinary low price and later trading it to advantage when a more desirable gun is found is not dealing. Buying a gun because you intend to sell it (or even trade it) immediately at advantage is dealing. Done often enough, it may be prosecuted. Done flagrantly enough even once, it may be prosecuted.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Duke:

So you buy a new whatzis and next week on the range, your buddy Joe says: "HEY, I really want that. $1500 good for you?".... What do you tell him, assuming you're reasonably sure that he's OK for NICS.... Maybe you know that Joe wants one when you buy it?

Incremental suppression of our rights?

Regards,

 

[Duke of Doubt]

SMM Associates: "So you buy a new whatzis and next week on the range, your buddy Joe says: "HEY, I really want that. $1500 good for you?".... What do you tell him, assuming you're reasonably sure that he's OK for NICS.... Maybe you know that Joe wants one when you buy it?"

Accepting an offer after the fact of purchase is fine. Buying it because you are pretty sure you eventually will trade it to advantage at some point may be alright, and on a limited basis should not get you into trouble. Buying it to sell to another person for profit, for even trade or even at a loss is illegal.