buying a gun to resell question

[Frank Ettin]

... If you are a good person and you're not ripping people off or committing crimes, people will likely not question you buying and selling guns whether it's one, two, or fifty, even if it is for profit and you do it regularly....

I often wonder where people get those sorts of ideas. Among other things, notions about what constitutes being a good person can vary widely. And if whatever you're doing gets you into the territory of dealing in firearms without a license, you are committing a crime. Being kind to dogs and children and dropping your spare change in the Salvation Army kettle around Christmas isn't necessarily going to get you off the hook on a serious federal weapons felony.

In any case, I can certainly envision a prosecutor concluding that someone who, without an FFL, has over the last six months sold some 20 or so guns at flea markets for cash and without background checks is not a particularly good person. And I doubt that selling good guns at fair prices would change that conclusion. And I suspect that a federal grand jury would agree.

...I am not a lawyer...

Understood.

...I'd imagine that being charged with that if you were arrested and charged with that, it would be an "add on" charge.

Instead of imagining (guessing), why don't you do some actual research?

 

[Davek1977]

Scooter 22 Said:

Those guns are in your name

Unless you are in one of the handful of states that actually has a registration, where are these guns "in your name" at? As in, WHo has these records? There is NO national gun registry in the US, so I'm curious as to WHERE these records are kept, who keeps them, and who will be accessing them? Many people seem to believe in this non-existent registry that magically keeps track of who owns what, and in reality, it DOES NOT EXIST

 

[Praxidike]

Scooter 22 Said:


Unless you are in one of the handful of states that actually has a registration, where are these guns "in your name" at? As in, WHo has these records? There is NO national gun registry in the US, so I'm curious as to WHERE these records are kept, who keeps them, and who will be accessing them? Many people seem to believe in this non-existent registry that magically keeps track of who owns what, and in reality, it DOES NOT EXIST

I believe that he meant "in your name" as in the paper trail or trace would immediately lead back the the initial or last FFL purchaser of the firearm. If I did buy two or more firearms at one time, local law enforcement and the ATF would be notified of my purchase. Who knows how long they keep and what they do with that info...

 

[Scooter22]

I believe that he meant "in your name" as in the paper trail or trace would immediately lead back the the initial or last FFL purchaser of the firearm. If I did buy two or more firearms at one time, local law enforcement and the ATF would be notified of my purchase. Who knows how long they keep and what they do with that info...

Yes thats what I meant. When you buy a gun from a dealer you have fill out a 4473 form and do a NICS check. The buyers name is on that form and those forms are kept. The OP is buying NEW guns and they all have to have paperwork filled out. So call it what you want ,form, registry, whatever, his name is going to be the one that shows up as last purchaser if a search was done of the paperwork unless he has the new buyer fill a new 4473 out.

 

[Spats McGee]

You will go unnoticed till the gun is used in a crime or it was sold to a felon.

I have found that thinking "I'll never get caught" is an awful thing to rely on when it comes to felonies.

 

[mavracer]

It's going to depend a lot on timing and the paper trail, I wouldn't buy with the intent on selling, but buying something that's a steal to play with for a while til you get tired of it and/or somebody offers enough for is totally different. Even if that somebody happens to make said offer the same day you bought it.

 

[TimSr]

I'm going to the original post, viewing it exactly as stated and I see a guy wants to buy 2 guns that are underpriced, with the intent of selling them later for more than his bargain price, and he wants to know if that lawfully makes him a "dealer".

Of course not, or we are all dealers. If you are feeling guilty, take them out and shoot them while they are in your possession. You might decide you like them, and to sell something else instead. It is not rare for a shooter to buy a gun, shoot it, and decide its not for him, and resell it. Its not uncommon for a person who has bought something at a bargain, to sell it for market value. If it becomes your full time or even part time job, then it might be viewed differently. Buying a couple that you might sell later does not make you a dealer.

Depending on what state you are in, and if you, a private owner are making a private sale to someone else who lives in your state, for example Ohio, all that is required in the transaction is verbal agreement, and a recommendation that you check the buyer's ID and verify reisdency. Lots of hobbiests do this lawfully on a regular basis.

As a matter of law, NICS cannot be used to compile a registration or gunowner database, and 4473s are kept by the dealer until he goes out of business.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's going to depend a lot on timing and the paper trail....

Why do you think what depends on that?

The question is whether one can have criminal liability for being a dealer in guns without a federal license. We've looked at the applicable statute defining what "being a dealer" means, and we've looked at how the courts have applied that definition.

"Timing and paper trail" aren't, themselves, elements. As the Fifth Circuit outlined (United States v. Brenner (5th. Cir., 2012, No. 11-50432, slip opinion), at 5-6, emphasis added):

...the jury must examine all circumstances surrounding the transaction, without the aid of a "bright-line rule". United States v. Palmieri, 21 F.3d 1265, 1269 (3d Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 513 U.S. 957 (1994). Relevant circumstances include: "the quantity and frequency of sales"; the "location of the sales"; "conditions under which the sales occurred"; "defendant's behavior before, during, and after the sales"; "the price charged"; "the characteristics of the firearms sold"; and, "the intent of the seller at the time of the sales". Tyson, 653 F.3d at 201.

The difficulty, as we've pointed out multiple times, is the lack of any sort of a "bright-line" rule.

 

[Jim Watson]

Suspicious me, I think the lack of a bright line rule is intentional.
It allows selective enforcement.
As Humpty Dumpty said, Every word I use means what I choose it to mean...

 

[Frank Ettin]

Suspicious me, I think the lack of a bright line rule is intentional....

Many things in law lack a bright-line test. One example which is commonly discussed here is whether in a particular case an act of violence against another human was legally justified.

So often the factors are defined, but it will be up to a jury to consider those factors, in light of what they conclude were the actual circumstances as determined from the evidence, to reach a conclusion. That is, in fact, a common paradigm in law.

...It allows selective enforcement.

It really doesn't have anything to do with so called selective enforcement. Indeed "selective enforcement" really doesn't mean anything.

Prosecutors always have had discretion to decide how to use their resources, and therefore they always have the discretion not to pursue a particular case -- subject, of course, to political reality. And to pursue a case, the prosecutor must be confident that he has the evidence necessary to convince a jury to convict.

 

[mavracer]

Why do you think what depends on that?

Because in order to show intent they're going to need these things.
One of the key pieces of evince against Abramski was check Alverez wrote to him before the purchase

 

[Frank Ettin]

Why do you think what depends on that?

Because in order to show intent they're going to need these things.
One of the key pieces of evince against Abramski was check Alverez wrote to him before the purchase

Nope, your ignorance is showing.

First, as I outlined in post 20, Abramski is a completely different matter. This thread has nothing to do with straw purchases. Abramski and the legal issues associated with that case are irrelevant to the question raised by the OP.

Second, in any particular case whether or not the prosecution can show whatever indent is an element of the crime, and how the prosecution might show that intent, will depend on the exact circumstances of that particular case. Different circumstances might offer a variety of types of evidence which could be useful for showing intent.

 

[dogtown tom]

Frank Ettin ......Abramski is a completely different matter. This thread has nothing to do with straw purchases. Abramski and the legal issues associated with that case are irrelevant to the question raised by the OP.

Not really. Abramski is an example of the prosecution of an individual for committing one violation of federal gun laws.

It is exceedingly rare for ATF to go after people for doing what Abramski did on his 4473. I've reported similar straw purchase attempts to ATF and they could not have cared any less. Granted, Abramski was charged with lying on the 4473 as to whether he was the actual buyer.........but it was only because Abramski was being investigated for other crimes was the tell tale check from his uncle discovered: http://www.roanoke.com/webmin/news/former-roanoke-police-officer-bruce-abramski-jr-seeing-both-sides/article_bb2fc1fd-814a-5d39-80cf-0de89d959961.html

They couldn't convict him of bank robbery (charges were eventually dropped) so the local prosecutor happily let the feds go after him.

There is no magic # that ATF looks at to determine if a person is engaging in the business. It could be as little as ONE firearm. A nonlicensee buying a gun from another nonlicensee at a gun show and immediately putting it out on his table to flip has caused more than one person to get a cease and desist letter from ATF. (I know, one of my customers was issued such a letter)

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank Ettin ......Abramski is a completely different matter. This thread has nothing to do with straw purchases. Abramski and the legal issues associated with that case are irrelevant to the question raised by the OP.

Not really. Abramski is an example of the prosecution of an individual for committing one violation of federal gun laws.

Yes really. While Abramski represents the prosecution and conviction of an individual for a single violation of one federal gun law, the OP's question involves different conduct and the question of whether that conduct might be considered a violation of a different federal gun law than that involved in Abramski. Different facts and different laws are involved.

...It is exceedingly rare for ATF to go after people for doing what Abramski did on his 4473. I've reported similar straw purchase attempts to ATF and they could not have cared any less....

Your limited personal experience is hardly a basis upon which to conclude how rare prosecution for that crime is. Certainly lying on a 4473 regarding who the actual buyer is does get prosecuted. A little quick research found 16 federal court of appeal cases in which a conviction for such conduct was affirmed. Those represent only convictions which were appealed. They would not include convictions which were not appealed, charges disposed of by plea bargain, or appeals which might have been discovered using different search parameters.

 

[dogtown tom]

Frank Ettin Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Quote:
Frank Ettin ......Abramski is a completely different matter. This thread has nothing to do with straw purchases. Abramski and the legal issues associated with that case are irrelevant to the question raised by the OP.

Not really. Abramski is an example of the prosecution of an individual for committing one violation of federal gun laws.

Yes really. While Abramski represents the prosecution and conviction of an individual for a single violation of one federal gun law, the OP's question involves different conduct and the question of whether that conduct might be considered a violation of a different federal gun law than that involved in Abramski. Different facts and different laws are involved.

You miss my point.
Whether the OP's conduct may be considered a violation of federal law is still the call of ATF and the USAO. While the OP might never come across ATF's radar, the next guy buying guns with the intention to resell for profit may. ATF/USAO don't even have to win the case to ruin someone's life.

The bottom line is if you want to flip guns for profit, get an FFL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
...It is exceedingly rare for ATF to go after people for doing what Abramski did on his 4473. I've reported similar straw purchase attempts to ATF and they could not have cared any less....

Your limited personal experience is hardly a basis upon which to conclude how rare prosecution for that crime is.

Nope, your ignorance is showing.
If you held an FFL you would be privy to several "dealer only" gun forums. My experience is not unusual.

As far as how rare prosecutions of Federal gun crimes are? You have to be kidding. Talk to any ATF IOI or Agent, any police officer and they'll fill your head full of cases where the USAO refused to pursue Federal charges. Instead, the USAO is happy letting the local DA press state charges.

Certainly lying on a 4473 regarding who the actual buyer is does get prosecuted.

I didn't say no one was prosecuted for lying on a 4473, I said it was "exceedingly rare".
There are thousands of denied NICS transactions every year that are not appealed. There is a reason they are not appealed.

I'm not the only one who believes that it is exceedingly rare for the feds to prosecute violations of federal gun laws:
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ted-cruzs-claim-on-gun-background-check-prosecutions/2013/04/11/e4c4fa6e-a2ed-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html

A little quick research found 16 federal court of appeal cases in which a conviction for such conduct was affirmed. Those represent only convictions which were appealed. They would not include convictions which were not appealed, charges disposed of by plea bargain, or appeals which might have been discovered using different search parameters.

A "little quick research" indeed.
Researching cases on appeal has absolutely nothing to do with cases that ARE NEVER PROSECUTED TO BEGIN WITH.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Whether the OP's conduct may be considered a violation of federal law is still the call of ATF and the USAO. While the OP might never come across ATF's radar, the next guy buying guns with the intention to resell for profit may. ATF/USAO don't even have to win the case to ruin someone's life. ...

But that still doesn't make the Supreme Court's decision in Abramski, or the issues of law and fact discussed in that opinion, relevant to the issue the OP raises. Again -- different laws and different facts.

...Nope, your ignorance is showing.
If you held an FFL you would be privy to several "dealer only" gun forums. My experience is not unusual....

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Feel free to rely on undocumented stories swapped in cyberspace. Downtown we give far more weight to well documented, recognized reliable subscription data bases.

...Talk to any ATF IOI or Agent, any police officer and they'll fill your head full of cases where the USAO refused to pursue Federal charges. Instead, the USAO is happy letting the local DA press state charges....

That is generally common. Federal prosecutors routinely defer to local authorities when the local authorities are pursuing the case. It's all a matter of allocation of limited resources. By deferring to local authorities when possible the USAO saves its limited resources for matters only it may prosecute.

...I didn't say no one was prosecuted for lying on a 4473, I said it was "exceedingly rare"....

What constitutes "exceedingly rare" is subjective. And whether suspected misconduct warrants the necessary investigation and resources will always be a matter of judgement. A federal prosecutor must first have enough evidence to get an indictment from a federal grand jury and then convince a trial jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

And both articles you link to reflect partisan political rhetoric.

...Researching cases on appeal has absolutely nothing to do with cases that ARE NEVER PROSECUTED TO BEGIN WITH.

And the undocumented stories swapped on your dealer forums have absolutely nothing to do with the worthwhile, meritorious cases that weren't prosecuted.

However, researching cases on appeal does have a lot to do with cases that were actually prosecuted.

 

[dogtown tom]

Frank Ettin Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
...Whether the OP's conduct may be considered a violation of federal law is still the call of ATF and the USAO. While the OP might never come across ATF's radar, the next guy buying guns with the intention to resell for profit may. ATF/USAO don't even have to win the case to ruin someone's life. ...

But that still doesn't make the Supreme Court's decision in Abramski, or the issues of law and fact discussed in that opinion, relevant to the issue the OP raises. Again -- different laws and different facts.

I disagree. So would Mr Abramski.
USAO prosecutes very few federal gun crimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
...Nope, your ignorance is showing.
If you held an FFL you would be privy to several "dealer only" gun forums. My experience is not unusual....

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Feel free to rely on undocumented stories swapped in cyberspace. Downtown we give far more weight to well documented, recognized reliable subscription data bases.

Then feel free to do your own research and prove me wrong.
First, you should start with DOJ's own statistics. I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
...Talk to any ATF IOI or Agent, any police officer and they'll fill your head full of cases where the USAO refused to pursue Federal charges. Instead, the USAO is happy letting the local DA press state charges....

That is generally common. Federal prosecutors routinely defer to local authorities when the local authorities are pursuing the case. It's all a matter of allocation of limited resources. By deferring to local authorities when possible the USAO saves its limited resources for matters only it may prosecute.

Well thanks for agreeing with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
...I didn't say no one was prosecuted for lying on a 4473, I said it was "exceedingly rare"....

What constitutes "exceedingly rare" is subjective.

When it's less than 1%..........what term would YOU use?

And whether suspected misconduct warrants the necessary investigation and resources will always be a matter of judgement. A federal prosecutor must first have enough evidence to get an indictment from a federal grand jury and then convince a trial jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well no kidding Captain Obvious. That's been my point!
Dealers reporting straw sales, lying on 4473's, NICS denials in the thousands....all violations of federal firearm laws result in an exceedingly tiny number of actual prosecutions. :banghead:

And both articles you link to reflect partisan political rhetoric.

Didn't read 'em did ya?
If you had you would have noted one is a liberal leaning site, the other a conservative bent...........and both contain links to FBI and GAO information.
Go ahead.......show us where the FBI and GAO info is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
...Researching cases on appeal has absolutely nothing to do with cases that ARE NEVER PROSECUTED TO BEGIN WITH.

And the undocumented stories swapped on your dealer forums have absolutely nothing to do with the worthwhile, meritorious cases that weren't prosecuted.

The heck they don't!
Whether they were worthwhile, meritorious, inconsequential or worthy of an episode of Law & Order, the fact is ATF is generally disinterested in dealers reporting violations.........it doesn't fit their agenda.
YOU (and ATF) will never know if those reports from dealers were worthwhile or meritorious..........because they WERE NOT INVESTIGATED. Not investigated means there is no chance of prosecution.

However, researching cases on appeal does have a lot to do with cases that were actually prosecuted.

Wow, how insightful.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank Ettin Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
...Whether the OP's conduct may be considered a violation of federal law is still the call of ATF and the USAO. While the OP might never come across ATF's radar, the next guy buying guns with the intention to resell for profit may. ATF/USAO don't even have to win the case to ruin someone's life. ...

But that still doesn't make the Supreme Court's decision in Abramski, or the issues of law and fact discussed in that opinion, relevant to the issue the OP raises. Again -- different laws and different facts.

I disagree. So would Mr Abramski.
USAO prosecutes very few federal gun crimes.

That still has nothing to do with the OP's question. He's asking about dealing without a license, not about lying on the 4473. You have no idea what Mr. Abramski would think.

...Then feel free to do your own research and prove me wrong.
First, you should start with DOJ's own statistics. I did....

It's not my job to prove you wrong. It's first your burden to try to prove your claims.

Second, if you have DOJ statistics to support your claim, post them.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

....(and ATF) will never know if those reports from dealers were worthwhile or meritorious..........because they WERE NOT INVESTIGATED. Not investigated means there is no chance of prosecution....

How do you know?

 

[alsaqr]

This Texas judge was sentenced to federal prison for selling guns without an FFL. Some of his guns went to Mexico.

Wright, 70, of Georgetown, pleaded guilty in May to engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license and to making false statements to a government agent. He resigned following his guilty pleas.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/excentral-texas-judge-gets-18-months-in-federal-guns-case/34723982

This guy sold six guns and got 54 months in federal prison:

According to court documents, beginning on or about January 9, 2014 until April 2014, Warner engaged in the business of dealing six firearms without being a licensed dealer. The weapons included a rifle, handguns, a revolver and two semi-automatic pistols.

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/cincinnati-man-sentenced-dealing-firearms-without-license

 

[dogtown tom]

Frank Ettin

I disagree. So would Mr Abramski.
USAO prosecutes very few federal gun crimes.

That still has nothing to do with the OP's question. He's asking about dealing without a license, not about lying on the 4473. You have no idea what Mr. Abramski would think.

It sure as heck has something to do with the OP. The OP is fearful of violating federal law. My point is ATF can, has and will prosecute for a single violation of a federal gun law. As the OP stated his intent is to acquire the firearms to profit from their resale and has no interest in obtaining the firearms for his own use and collection, he cannot truthfully answer question 11a.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
...Then feel free to do your own research and prove me wrong.
First, you should start with DOJ's own statistics. I did....

It's not my job to prove you wrong. It's first your burden to try to prove your claims.

Second, if you have DOJ statistics to support your claim, post them.

I did.
Links to DOJ and GAO are in both of the articles I linked to.....if you are too lazy to read the articles and click on the links, then here, I'll spoon feed you:
GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/g100064.pdf
DOJ report: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf
Want more?

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If you think my claims are extraordinary you haven't been paying attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
....(and ATF) will never know if those reports from dealers were worthwhile or meritorious..........because they WERE NOT INVESTIGATED. Not investigated means there is no chance of prosecution....

How do you know?

Because it's pretty hard to begin an investigation when you don't know the name of the person who attempted a straw purchase or who lied on the 4473.

One of the first things ATF does in an investigation of a firearms violation is ask for a copy of the Form 4473.

And that is how I know.
(and with you being an attorney and a moderator on a firearms forum you should know how I would know)

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

The definitive study (to date) on 4473 violations and prosecutions is: "Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by a NICS Check in 2010."

The study was funded by the US DOJ, and was received by them in August 2012. In the report, the number of violations in 2010 related to filling out a 4473 form was 76,142. The BATF referred 62 cases for prosecution.

Of the 62 cases, 18 were declined by the prosecutor, meaning 44 cases out of 76,142 violations were actually pursued by the BATF + DOJ. (Table F. Judicial status of charges in 2010 NICS denial cases referred for prosecution)

That is 0.000577%...I think that is the definition of "miniscule amount."

When someone says the BATF and DOJ don't pursue 4473 violations....I think the facts of that report backup the assertion.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This Texas judge was sentenced to federal prison for selling guns without an FFL. Some of his guns went to Mexico.

Wright, 70, of Georgetown, pleaded guilty in May to engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license and to making false statements to a government agent. He resigned following his guilty pleas.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/excentral-texas-judge-gets-18-months-in-federal-guns-case/34723982

This guy sold six guns and got 54 months in federal prison:

According to court documents, beginning on or about January 9, 2014 until April 2014, Warner engaged in the business of dealing six firearms without being a licensed dealer. The weapons included a rifle, handguns, a revolver and two semi-automatic pistols.

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/cincinnati-man-sentenced-dealing-firearms-without-license

Thank you. Some interesting examples of prosecutions for dealing in firearms without a license.

The Warner case is especially interesting because only a relatively few guns (six) were involved. It also shows a prosecution resolved by a plea bargain -- and which therefore would not show up in a data base of reported appellate court decisions.

Also the link you posted regarding the Warner case takes one to a page with a link to ATF press releases. Following that link and browsing through the press releases gives one a sense of ATF activity prosecuting violations of federal firearms law.

 

[gc70]

18 USC 922a1A - Unlawfully engaging in the business of firearms: a compilation of data by Syracuse University shows less than 200 prosecutions per year during the period 2008-2012 in which the lead charge was 922(a)(1)(A).

18 USC 922a6 - False/Fictitious statements in order to acquire a firearm/ammunition: a compilation of data by Syracuse University shows less than 200 prosecutions per year during the period 2008-2012 in which the lead charge was 922(a)(6).

A research report funded by the DOJ on Enforcement of the Brady Act in 2010 reflected the following in Table I:
76,142 FBI referrals of NICS denials to ATF
62 ATF referrals to DOJ for prosecution

Of the 62 cases referred for prosecution, Table F shows the following status:
18 were declined by prosecutor
15 were dismissed
4 complaints filed
12 pending action by prosecutor
13 guilty pleas by defendant

Table G shows that of the 13 guilty pleas, 1 (one) involved 18 USC 922(a)(6) - Falsified information when buying firearms.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...As the OP stated his intent is to acquire the firearms to profit from their resale and has no interest in obtaining the firearms for his own use and collection, he cannot truthfully answer question 11a.....

And that is your mistake. You are wrong on that point, as you would understand if you had read and understood the Court's opinion in Abramski.

I outlined the legal issue in post 20:

....The significant facts in Abramski were that Bruce Abramski and his uncle, Angel Alvarez, arranged between themselves that Alvarez would give the necessary money to Abramski, Abramski would buy a Glock 19 with the money, and then Abramski would transfer the Glock to Alvarez.

On those facts, Abramski was not the actual purchaser/transferee of the gun and therefore lied when he claimed to be on the 4473. He was not the actual purchaser/transferee because he was buying the gun on behalf of Alvarez.

The conclusion that Alvarez, not Ambraski, was the actual pruchaser/transferee follows naturally from the well understood principles of the law of agency (which have been around for hundreds of years)

Agency: An Overview

Agency law is concerned with any "principal"-"agent" relationship; a relationship in which one person has legal authority to act for another. Such relationships arise from explicit appointment, or by implication. The relationships generally associated with agency law include guardian-ward, executor or administrator-decedent, and employer-employee.

The law of agency is based on the Latin maxim "Qui facit per alium, facit per se," which means "he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself." Agency, in its legal sense, nearly always relates to commercial or contractual dealings.:

So if you and I enter into an arrangement whereby you will buy a gun for the sole purpose and with the expectation of subsequently transferring the gun to me, and with the understanding that I am supplying the money, I am a principal; and you are buying the gun as my agent. And thus under the well established principles of agency law, I am the actual buyer. My agent is merely acting on my behalf....

So if one is buying a gun with the expectation that he will attempt to sell it at a profit, he has no identified buyer; and he is not acting as anyone's agent. He is buying the gun for himself, as a principal, on his own account. He is assuming the risk that he will be able to sell the gun to someone at the profit he hopes to make.

Buying a gun with the hope of being able to sell it at a profit, but with no prior arrangement made with a buyer, does not involve the legal issues upon which Ambramski was decided. It is not a straw purchase.

However, it does involve the question of whether doing so is acting as dealer and whether the crime of dealing in firearms without a license is committed.

Different facts and different law.

The definitive study (to date) on 4473 violations and prosecutions is: "Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by a NICS Check in 2010."...

18 USC 922a1A - Unlawfully engaging in the business of firearms: a compilation of data by Syracuse University shows less than 200 prosecutions per year during the period 2008-2012 in which the lead charge was 922(a)(1)(A).

18 USC 922a6 - False/Fictitious statements in order to acquire a firearm/ammunition: a compilation of data by Syracuse University shows less than 200 prosecutions per year during the period 2008-2012 in which the lead charge was 922(a)(6)....

Excellent, and thank you both. It's good to see that some people know what "evidence" means and how to use it to support a point.

 

[Styx]

You miss my point.
Whether the OP's conduct may be considered a violation of federal law is still the call of ATF and the USAO. While the OP might never come across ATF's radar, the next guy buying guns with the intention to resell for profit may. ATF/USAO don't even have to win the case to ruin someone's life.

The bottom line is if you want to flip guns for profit, get an FFL.

Keep in mind that I have not followed this subject, so I do not know the case law, statistic, or the like. I'm basing my opinion on what has been cited, linked to, and discussed in his thread... I also do not know all of the details of the Abramski case being that I only briefly read up on it a while back when someone started a thread on this site...

Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, your point in bring up the Abramski case is that he was selectively prosecuted for a crime at the ATF's discretion that many others have not been prosecuted for? The logic behind your opinion is that even though the average Joe selling for profit on a small scale isn't usually at the top of the ATF's list, so based on the fact that Abramski was charged with a chime that you say normally goes unoticed, I can possibly also be singled out. Do I understand you correctly?

In the Abramski case as I recall, he wasn't "singled out" per se, but rather he was originally under investigation for another crime. Next, Abramski clearly violated federal law and there was supporting evidence to prove the government's case which may very well be why they brought the charges. More importantly, based on the law and case law that Frank has cited, it's not a cut and dry or black and white topic as to flipping on or two firearms one time is illegal. Based on the fact that in your own Abramski example: Abramski wasn't an average Joe who was specifically targeted for braking a, as you say, law that usually goes unnoticed, and unlike the Abramski case, no law would decisively be broken by the one time non-repetitive sale of a firearm for profit (based on the text of the law) where as in the Abramski case, he clearly violated the text of the law, I don't see how your logic and example given to support it applies to my case. Case law and the law it's self dictates that there would have to be other mitigating circumstances which would not exist in my own personal case whereas plenty existed in Abramski's trial. It's also very possible that some are being prosecuted and many others are not out because of the mitigating circumstances in each case instead of simply by chance and good or bad luck.

I'm not saying this because it's the conclusion it's what I want to hear, but many of the members posting are wanting to come to general cause and effect conclusion without taking other facts of the case into account.

(C) 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;