At what point is it no longer a straw purchase?

[Zedo]

Why would you be willing to establish a paper trail for yourself so that your "friend" can avoid making a lawful firearm purchase.

If you sell a gun to him and turn around and purchase an identical replacement, your INTENT is to skirt the "straw purchase" clause of the law.

INTENT is the legal foundation for the law and you're trying to fraudulently circumvent precisely what the law is designed to prevent.

Moreover, BATF can use your computer memory and these posts as evidence if they decide they want to bust you.

You're dealing with a federal weapons charge. It could result in your losing your right to own firearms.

Think about that.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The intent to resell is what matters. That's what makes you "engaged in the business."

"Engaged in the business" is not the same as a straw purchase. Read #54 very carefully.

You are confusing 2 different things. Engaged in the business has a specific meaning. Buying one gun because you think you might make a few bucks on it eventually does not appear to meet the definition of either a straw purchase or "engaged in the business"

From ATF:

The term "engaged in the business" means -- as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

 

[NonConformist]

Even if you buy it and sell it to a friend, its not a straw purchase unless you know he cant have guns.

So if hes no criminal dont worry about it!

 

[TexasRifleman]

Even if you buy it and sell it to a friend, its not a straw purchase unless you know he cant have guns.

Seriously, go read #54. It is a straw purchase if you intend to hide the actual buyer of the firearm. It's written down very plainly, not sure why this is confusing.

Nowhere does it say anything about whether or not the person can buy a gun on his own, it simply says, again from post #54 right here:

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.

 

[AndyC]

I bought a handgun from a friend FTF and didn't go through an FFL dealer (quite legal in Texas). Whether I bought it because it was a good deal (which it was) or because I wanted to avoid any paper-trail (which it wasn't - I don't care) has no bearing on the legality of the transaction, as far as I can see.

 

[blackcash88]

Settle down, Beavis...

 

[tuckerdog1]

Reading some of the posts, I'm thinking some may misunderstand. I do NOT intend to buy a new firearm, and just turn around and sell it to my friend. I will be selling him the firearm I bought about a year ago. When I bought that one, I had no intention ( at the time ) of selling it. He will get that one. I will use the $$$ from the sale to replace that firearm with another NEW one ( which I have no intention of selling ).

Tuckerdog1

 

[deadin]

So what would be the difference if I just bought a new gun, and turned around and did a FTF with that one?

The difference would be that the above example would be a "Straw Purchase".
Selling him your old one and replacing it with a new one wouldn't be.

Silly as it sounds, the law doesn't have to make sense. It just is.

 

[thesecond]

Tuckerdog1:

I'd be comfortable saying that somewere in this thread is the answer to your very specific question and set of facts. I believe the federal prohibition under 922(a)(6) focuses on the facts at the time of purchase, and whether or not your 4473 declarations are consistent with those facts. As I mentioned in my earlier post, a subsquent transfer of your gun is fine, because, at the time of purchase, such gun was actually purchased for you. Later, you decided you didn't want to keep it, so now you go to 922(d). Make sure, or at least take reasonable steps to confirm that your intended buyer is not a "prohibited person".

For purposes of federal law/prosecution, the straw purchase doctrine is informative, but not controlling law. And the federal statute has no intention of "occupying the field", i.e., it is allowing the states to be more restrictive, if they choose. As such, you must look to see if your state, Texas, has decided to be more restrictive in the area of transfer of firearms (by sale) between individuals. I cannot, at this time, answer whether Texas has codified, modified, or disregarded the "straw purchase doctrine".

I also cannot, at this time answer whether Texas has more types of "prohibited persons" than that indicated by the feds. Make reasonable inquiry about the status of your buddy, with respect to Texas prohibitions on possession, transfer, etc.". And let me add, finally, that I believe not liking the "paper trail when buying new from a dealer", is a personal comment on one's trust of the federal government's integrity regarding records, but it does not necessarily raise any flags as to his qualifications to purchase a firearm. Respectfully,

 

[Thernlund]

Oh screw it. It may be technically illegal in some 'round about fashion, but the odds of something coming of it are fantastically remote.

Just sell him your gun. Buy yourself another one later.


-T.

 

[RDak]

Reading some of the posts, I'm thinking some may misunderstand. I do NOT intend to buy a new firearm, and just turn around and sell it to my friend. I will be selling him the firearm I bought about a year ago. When I bought that one, I had no intention ( at the time ) of selling it. He will get that one. I will use the $$$ from the sale to replace that firearm with another NEW one ( which I have no intention of selling ).

Ok then. What makes you think it would be a strawman purchase?

I see absolutely nothing here that indicates a strawman purchase.

I am totally confused on this one.

Now, whether or not you get a receipt for the sale to your friend is up to you.

Same for whether or not you have reason to believe he is allowed to own a firearm. If he said "no" to signing a receipt with the serial number on the receipt, I'd never sell him the gun. That is to protect me and shows he isn't suspicious "on the surface" if you get what I mean.

For me, no receipt, no sale.

 

[tuckerdog1]

Ok then. What makes you think it would be a strawman purchase?

I never thought what I was going to do was a straw purchase. But the whole process got me wondering. In the end, we'll both have identical firearms. But doing it one way is legal, and the other is not. Like Dedin said, it's just the law. It doesn't have to make sense.

Tuckerdog1

 

[msb45]

Red Flag

From various news stories and accounts of "forward tracing weapons" I think an "off the book" firearm that got found would be traced to you very quickly.

Could be a recovered stolen gun, a crime, or your buddy gets in a case of legitimate self-defense. If this happens soon after you "bought" the gun it will mean an ATF visit. I wouldn't be surprised if your purchases after that get held in an admin check.

Assuming you're both in the clear do you have a few thousand bucks to have a real lawyer there for your questioning? If it gets messy and you're charged do you $30-$50K?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Could be a recovered stolen gun, a crime, or your buddy gets in a case of legitimate self-defense. If this happens soon after you "bought" the gun it will mean an ATF visit. I wouldn't be surprised if your purchases after that get held in an admin check.

But, in this case, it would not be soon after tuck bought the gun, it would be a year after.