Considered a "straw purchase"? (Scenario)

[Kyl3]

Hi,

I realize in form 4473, it asks if you are the "actual buyer" of the firearm.
And I also know that you are not considered the "actual buyer" if someone else gives you the money to purchase a gun for them (due to their age, felonies, etc.)
But, it is legal to purchase a firearm as the "actual buyer" if you are purchasing the firearm for someone else as a gift.

Here is where I am unclear.
If a person (who can legally purchase a gun) buys a handgun from a FFL dealer with HIS OWN money, but has intent after the purchase to sell it as a private party sale to someone 18-20 years old...Is this considered a "straw purchase"?
Or does this fall under the same exception of giving it as a gift?

By the way I am talking about in Florida, where private party sales do not have to go through an FFL, and private party sales are legal to a person 18-20 years old.

Thanks.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Gifts are not straw purchases. But if you are buying the firearm in order to resell it to another, that's not a gift.

 

[Kyl3]

I realize this.
So this example is considered a "straw purchase"? Even though the person buying the gun from the FFL is using his own money at the time?

 

[Birch Knoll]

I am doubtful that the mere fact that the firearm is purchased with your own money, which you then recover by more-or-less immediate resale to a person who would not have been eligible to purchase directly from the FFL, would keep your butt out of prison.

 

[bikemutt]

Well, if they don't tag you for facilitating a "straw" I'm sure they could come up with something creative, like engaging in firearms commerce without a license.

Why go there? Let 'em wait a year or two and everyone's good.

 

[Sport45]

Sounds like a straw purchase to me. You are buying a handgun that the final owner isn't qualified to buy for himself.

You could probably sell him one of your handguns in a legal face to face deal. After that you'd be free to buy a handgun to replace it.

 

[JohnKSa]

Or does this fall under the same exception of giving it as a gift?

No. Giving something to someone is clearly different from selling something to someone. If the second party obtains it via purchase then it is clearly not a gift therefore the gift exception, just as clearly, does not apply.

If a person (who can legally purchase a gun) buys a handgun from a FFL dealer with HIS OWN money, but has intent after the purchase to sell it as a private party sale to someone 18-20 years old...Is this considered a "straw purchase"?

The problem here is that the buyer is intentionally circumventing the law. the 18-20 year old can't legally buy the handgun in question from the FFL himself so the buyer is acting as a conduit to get it to him. That's not legal. Don't do it--it's not worth the risk.

If he wants a handgun, he can legally buy one from a non-FFL holder without breaking the law.

If someone wants to GIVE him a handgun, then they can buy it any way they want and then GIVE it to him.

If someone (who is not an FFL) wants to SELL him a handgun then they can do that too--but if they're smart it won't be one that they obtained via a recent purchase from an FFL.

 

[dprice3844444]

gift certificate(per my atf compliance officer)and an earlier thread in here

 

[Frank Ettin]

The actual offense is violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on the 4473 (specifically about who is the actual buyer), and has nothing to do with the ultimate recipient being a prohibited person.

See the ATF publication Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, 2005, at page 165 (emphasis added):

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. 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. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms...

...If a person (who can legally purchase a gun) buys a handgun from a FFL dealer with HIS OWN money, but has intent after the purchase to sell it as a private party sale to someone 18-20 years old...Is this considered a "straw purchase"...

Based on your description of the contemplated transaction, it fully appears that the intent is for you to buy the gun on behalf of that other person, as the agent of that other person, for the sole purpose of transferring it to that other person. Even though it appears that you would be fronting the cost, it can be inferred from the circumstances that the other person has committed to reimburse you and take possession of the gun.

Under the circumstances described, one can't help but be incredulous at any claim that you have not made prior arrangements to get reimbursed after the fact. One would have to believe that you would on your own initiative spend your money on a gun you obviously don't want on the off chance that this particular individual will then decide to buy it from you.

Although whether or not a transaction is a straw purchase depends on intent, contrary to popular belief, prosecutors convince a jury of a defendant's intent all the time. Intent is an element of many crimes and can frequently be inferred from actions surrounding an event or transaction, including timing. And sometimes statements made in letters, notes or even posts in an Internet forum (such as the OP's post here) can successfully be used as evidence of intent. (And there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule that would generally allow such statements to be used as evidence.)

 

[Bubba613]

That sure sounds like a straw purchase to me. Once the intent is for someone else to receive the firearm (non gift) then it is a straw, regardless of whether the ultimate recipient is legal or not.

 

[brickeyee]

You will have a hell of a time arguing that it is NOT a straw purchase, and likely not succeed.

"I'll buy the gun for you, and then you can pay me back."

Or a dealing without a license charge since you intended to sell the gun from the start.

You do not want to defend against either.

 

[MtnCreek]

private party sale to someone 18-20 years old

You could help this person find a used handgun from a private party. The 18 to 20 y/o could then complete the transaction without either of you violating federal law. Everyone wins and no one gets in trouble. Solved.

 

[bigfatdave]

You could probably sell him one of your handguns in a legal face to face deal. After that you'd be free to buy a handgun to replace it.

What's the difference?
While that would be how I went about supplying someone under 21 with a defensive weapon, it would be because I could set them up with a known working gun and some gear, but then I don't sell guns, I'd be setting up a family member or family friend with a defensive tool because they came to me in need, not just supplying a plinker to some random guy. If you're helping someone take an active role in their own self-defense, then just do it ... if you're being approached by some random guy, don't bother.

All the laws/rules about partial adulthood are stupid, this is a prime example of a nonsense regulation and unenforceable law.
"malum prohibitum" taken to an extreme - the federal government has not just infringed on the right to self-defense for a large subset of the population, they've attempted to flat-out deny it. What's next? Shall we require everyone 18Y000D-20Y364D old to quarter soldiers, limit their speech, submit to unlawful searches, etc etc?

Screw it, buy whatever gun you want, OP, and sell it legally if you change your mind about wantiong it. Noody can divine your intentions, and you ARE actually the purchaser of the property, whatever your intentions. Make sure you're aware of the private party sales in your locality (it appears you are) and follow the law for each transaction, leaving the gun in your collection however long makes you feel better, with the knowledge that it doesn't matter morally or ethically.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Screw it, buy whatever gun you want, OP, and sell it legally if you change your mind about wantiong it.

Are you going to serve his time if he's convicted as a result of your advice?

Noody can divine your intentions, and you ARE actually the purchaser of the property, whatever your intentions.

I assure you that 12 jurors can indeed divine your intentions, so far as the law is concerned.

 

[bikemutt]

bigfatdave, I'm inclined to agree with most of what you've stated, however there is an area participants in the game should consider, the business of determining intent, or as you put it "divining your intentions".

The flow of monies in these times is carefully watched, in larger sums mind you. But when I stop at McDonalds drive-thru, and before I can complete the fine dining experience in my F-150 with my dog, my smartphone tells me my bank account was just debited for the meal, well...the information is all there.

Lawyers are famous for divining intent from actions.

 

[Bonesinium]

What's the difference?

Practically speaking? I'm not sure there is any. Legally speaking? One of those scenarios is legal, the other is not, as far as I can tell. Does it make any sense? Nope.

All the laws/rules about partial adulthood are stupid, this is a prime example of a nonsense regulation and unenforceable law.
"malum prohibitum" taken to an extreme - the federal government has not just infringed on the right to self-defense for a large subset of the population, they've attempted to flat-out deny it. What's next? Shall we require everyone 18Y000D-20Y364D old to quarter soldiers, limit their speech, submit to unlawful searches, etc etc?

Fact.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I assure you that 12 jurors can indeed divine your intentions, so far as the law is concerned.

And the OP's first post in this thread would be a big help to them.

 

[bigfatdave]

Are you going to serve his time if he's convicted as a result of your advice?

How, exactly, will he be convicted?
Of what?
The law is unenforceably vague, unconstitutional (two ways), and generally derived from an authoritarian standpoint ... with a competent defense I doubt it would make it to trial, based on the bublic embarassment for the prosecutor and BATFEIEIO.

bikemutt, I'm not going to lecture on personal finance, but ...
1-you shouldn't be putting fast food on a card (hell, this is coming from a fat guy, you shouldn't be eating that crap in the first place)
2-nobody is tracking cash in a useful way

===

Seriously, a lot of assumptions about competence and ability of these alphabet soup agencies are being made. Stop being scared subjects and act like citizens.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty simple

 

[Sam1911]

Question has been answered, and now heading off topic.