barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
If the gun is intended to be a gift, and she is the intended giver, then she is the actual purchaser since she can't give it is a gift without first purchasing it.
Which is why simply allowing two people to jointly file a 4473 would resolve all this nonsense (if both parties of the "straw purchase" sign the form and bounce through NICS, why should anyone care?)
I'm still not understanding how the ATF can require that the end user deal through the FFL without asserting authority over private sales. Were the end user a prohibited person I can understand, but not if no crime was committed by the subsequent transfer.
I think this was an example of the ATF legislating by form (since they make up the whole 4473 themselves) and the court not being suitably informed that the only reason a "lie" was made on the form in the first place was because the form exceeded "practical realities" of a gun sale which may legally be done by one person on behalf of another.
--Just so long as there's no 4473 involved, is what they're saying. That to me suggests something amiss with the 4473 rather than the activity; that there is no provision for a gift or proxy (not "straw") transaction in the form when "practical realities" show there really needs to be.
Midwest, this whole business started when Abramski was (wrongfully, IIRC) pursued by police under suspicion of bank robbery, and this was obviously the best thing they found to pin on him in order to justify the search warrant on his house (they found a receipt of the transaction --a cautionary tale about insisting on those 'transaction records' for all your private sales, btw. The police likely wouldn't have been wise to the 'deceit' otherwise)
TCB