FFL is trying to steal my father in laws pistol

[tarosean]

Is this a rare or extremely valuable pistol?

If not I would chalk it up to lessons learned and try and sell it on consignment.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It is not within The FFL's scope to deny that transaction

Really. Please show us the statute that REQUIRES any FFL to transfer ANY firearm.

This is a plain and simple mistake on the OP's part. He sent a handgun to an FFL with the expectation that the FFL would violate Federal law and transfer that handgun to an out-of-state resident.

Now, the absolutely simple solution to the problem is for the father-in-law to gift or sell the gun to a Montana resident, then the Montana FFL COULD legally transfer the handgun to the recipient. But nothing REQUIRES the FFL to. The problem is, apparantly there was no prior arrangements made with the Montana FFL and now he's ticked about the whole deal.

Yes, the FFL is unnecessarily being a male organ about this whole thing. But equal fault lies with the sender of the firearm who should have known the legal problems associated with the situation.

 

[Red Cent]

Play it again, Sam.

I didn't know that. Please explain. Across state lines?

 

[cameroneod]

He had no idea he could legally send the firearm to himself until I (and then the ATF) told him. He's trying to make nice with the ffl and work something out, but the last time I talked to him it didnt sound promising.

 

[Sam1911]

Could the FFL claim that he thinks this is a straw purchase (selling it to the brother, after the FIL is denied)?

Not to side too firmly with a dealer who probably is being unnecessarily hard-nosed about this, but YES.

An FFL can deny any sale to anyone, and is instructed by the ATF to do so if he/she believes a firearm is being bought for another person. (Not as a gift ... bought on behalf of that person, with that person's funds.) In other words, a "straw purchase."

Now, if someone tries to do a sale and it falls through for any reason, and then shows up the next day with their brother and says, "now HE's buying this gun," I may feel very VERY certain that that gun will be in the hands of the original intended (refused) purchaser just about as soon as they walk out of my shop. I would be in my rights to deny that as a straw purchase.

I think, if the dealer is reasonable at all (he may be, just a stickler for the rules), your FIL could go back to the shop, with his brother, explain the entire situation again, and say specifically this:

"I want to sell this gun to my brother. He will hold it for me until I am settled. When I am settled in my new state, he will transfer it to me legally -- through a dealer in my new state."

At that point, your FIL is throwing himself on the mercy of the dealer, and asking the dealer to trust him to do the legal thing. Acknowledging that this COULD be a straw sale, but promising that it will not be.

The dealer may still say no, and be within his rights to say no. But he may say yes, and be within his legal rights to say yes, too.

If he sticks with "NO," I would then instruct him to send it back to the original FFL, and of course offer to pay for the shipping. (Contact THAT dealer again, and explain what in the world is going on!) Then, at least he can get it out of the MT dealer's hands and back to someplace he could legally come get it.

It may even be possible to have the AK dealer send it to ANOTHER MT FFL -- AS A SALE TO THE BROTHER. Then the brother can pick it up, and do the appropriate transfer once your FIL is settled down. That's probably cheaper and easier than another trip to Alaska.

 

[Hardtarget]

None of this sounds right. Take the dealer to civil court. Make him explain his actions to a judge.

Mark

 

[Sam1911]

Not wanting to bring in the Feds...but, why not talk to BATFE and get real info from the people that have the last word?

Well...what would you expect them to say? They'll tell the FIL that the dealer cannot transfer it to him, and would certainly back up his choice to refuse to sell to the brother.

They aren't going to have anything to say on the "theft" issue, most likely.

 

[cameroneod]

It may even be possible to have the AK dealer send it to ANOTHER MT FFL -- AS A SALE TO THE BROTHER. Then the brother can pick it up, and do the appropriate transfer once your FIL is settled down. That's probably cheaper and easier than another trip to Alaska.

Good advice. At this point he just wants someone besides the pawn shop to get it. I told him to list it on gunbroker. No way can the dealer say thats a straw sale.

 

[dogtown tom]

MachIVshooter Correct. Which, as previously stated, his brother could fill out the form and take possession. It is not within The FFL's scope to deny that transaction, he's just being a persnickety jerk.

Not correct. It IS within the FFL's "scope" to deny the transaction as it would be a straw sale.......a Federal felony.

dirtykid ^^ This ! and then come back and let us all know WHICH FFL in Montana to AVOID !,, why's he being such a "richard-for-short" ?

The Montana dealer isn't being a "richard-for-short".....he's following Federal law.

cameroneod He had no idea he could legally send the firearm to himself until I (and then the ATF) told him. He's trying to make nice with the ffl and work something out, but the last time I talked to him it didnt sound promising.

Making nice with the Montana dealer has nothing to do with this situation.......by law the Montana dealer cannot transfer the firearm to your FIL. No amount of being "nice" will change that.

Sam1911 ...."I want to sell this gun to my brother. He will hold it for me until I am settled. When I am settled in my new state, he will transfer it to me legally -- through a dealer in my new state."

Straw sale. No dealer in his right mind would participate in that.

Hardtarget None of this sounds right. Take the dealer to civil court. Make him explain his actions to a judge.

Take the dealer to court for what?????
No crime has occured. Nothing actionable has occured.



The dealer is following Federal law.

 

[SARDiver]

Tell him you're picking it up for someone in Mexico. The ATF should be fine with that.





"Straw sale. No dealer in his right mind would participate in that."

I wouldn't think it would be a straw sale if the brother filled out a form 4473, had the NICS background check and received the goods from the FFL.

 

[NavyLCDR]

None of this sounds right. Take the dealer to civil court. Make him explain his actions to a judge.

Mark

Easy explanation. FFL: "Your honor, Federal law, 18 USC 922 (b)(3) prohibits me from lawfully transferring a handgun to Mr. J. Citizen. Respectfully, your honor, I am not going to risk my license, my business, and going to Federal prison to transfer one handgun to a person to whom it is illegal for me to transfer the handgun to. I received a handgun in the mail from another FFL for transfer to Mr. J. Citizen and when Mr. J. Citizen shows up he turns out not to be a Montana resident. Simply not my problem.

Then, after explaining to Mr. J. Citizen why I could transfer the gun to him, he comes back a week later and claims that he sold his gun to his brother, and would like me to transfer the gun to his brother. Tell me, your honor, would you believe that?" End of explanation.

 

[Nushif]

You conveniently tend to skip the part where he says he will just keep it.
That is the part I would assume he would be taking the guy to court for. It is *not* the dealer's firearm.

 

[Sam1911]

Straw sale. No dealer in his right mind would participate in that.

As I said, he could refuse it, legally.

But, he could chose to make the sale without breaking the law. It would be entirely up to him.

A long shot, but not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[snubbies]

Many Opinions

There have been many opinions put forth but the simple answer may be is to pay for the receiving FFL, after coordination with sending FFL, to send the gun back to the sending FFL. Back to square one.

 

[atblis]

Is this even technically a transfer? If I am understanding this correctly, this did not need to involve an FFL. It's not interstate commerce. Effectively what he did is ship it to himself.

Getting the ATF involved might be the best option.

 

[pikid89]

ask him to ship it back to Alaska on your fathers dime

if the FFL refuses to do even that, then i think you would probably be right on him wanting to keep the gun

 

[dogtown tom]

SARDiver ....I wouldn't think it would be a straw sale if the brother filled out a form 4473, had the NICS background check and received the goods from the FFL.

It is a straw sale because the brother is not the actual purchaser/buyer/transferee......which is the first question on a Form 4473. According to the OP the FIL never intended to sell it to his brother, so having the FIL's brother attempt to acquire the handgun is a classic straw sale.

Nushif You conveniently tend to skip the part where he says he will just keep it.
That is the part I would assume he would be taking the guy to court for. It is *not* the dealer's firearm.

The dealer could say he was going to melt it into a statue of Rosie O'Donnell.....and STILL no crime has been committed until he actually does so.

Every state has abandon property laws. If Montana has laws that allow the dealer to keep the gun after thirty days.....the OP's FIL better have him ship the gun back to Alaska before then. Until then NO CRIME HAS OCCURED.

Sam1911 ....But, he could chose to make the sale without breaking the law.

Nope. If the dealer has any suspicion that it is a straw sale he cannot by law complete the transaction. The OP's first post said the FIL made it clear that the gun was intended for himself. The OP's second post states the dealer would not transfer to the FIL's brother.......undoubtably because he suspects a straw sale.

atblis Is this even technically a transfer? If I am understanding this correctly, this did not need to involve an FFL. It's not interstate commerce. Effectively what he did is ship it to himself.

It is a transfer. The FIL did not ship it himself, to himself.....he had an Alaska dealer ship it to a Montana dealer.....which would require the Montana dealer to transfer the firearm according to Federal law.

The FIL messed up.

pikid89 ask him to ship it back to Alaska on your fathers dime

if the FFL refuses to do even that, then i think you would probably be right on him wanting to keep the gun

The Montana dealer would probably be delighted to get this gun off his books. He cannot transfer it to the owner and like most dealers doesn't want someone else's gun sitting in his safe taking up space. (I'm currently sitting on three AR lowers for someone who hasn't shown the least amount of interest in picking them up....going on six weeks now)



.

 

[goon]

Could the father have the gun shipped to the OP's wife, his daughter, in another state. Daughter takes possession, holds the gun, ships to his father's new FFL when the father arrives wherever he is going. Or if the state is like PA and doesn't require a transfer between immediate family, she could just give it to her dad when he stops by to visit next time.

 

[dogtown tom]

goon Could the father have the gun shipped to the OP, his son, in another state.
Son takes possession, holds the gun, ships to his father's new FFL when the father arrives wherever he is going.

Only if the father in law has established residency in the new state (and can document his residency).

 

[goon]

Well if that seems to be the goal anyhow, isn't that better than surrendering the gun to someone else and never seeing it again?

 

[SARDiver]

I still don't see how selling the weapon to someone who is legally permitted to own a firearm is a straw buy.

According to the OP the FIL never intended to sell it to his brother, so having the FIL's brother attempt to acquire the handgun is a classic straw sale.

The circumstances changed. It was no longer legal for the FIL to receive the weapon in Montana. If there is a bill of sale to the brother, where is the law being broken? It IS legal for the brother to purchase the firearm in MT, and an NICS background check will show that. If they go in and say, "Hey, you transfer it to him and I'll just buy it back," then yes, it's a straw sale.

Unless my definition of the straw sale is completely off....I thought it was purchasing a weapon or ammunition for someone not lawfully entitled to do so himself.

 

[VintovkaMosin]

@SARDiver

Technically, yes, but then again everything gun related in the US has gone to heck since 1968, where the ATF seems to have free reign over everything, they can defines something as illegal without a law being past apparently, with them banning open bolt guns.

 

[dogtown tom]

SARDiver I still don't see how selling the weapon to someone who is legally permitted to own a firearm is a straw buy.....Unless my definition of the straw sale is completely off....I thought it was purchasing a weapon or ammunition for someone not lawfully entitled to do so himself.

A straw sale is any sale where the purchaser is not the actual buyer.
Question 11a on Form 4473: "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person....."

 

[NavyLCDR]

Unless my definition of the straw sale is completely off....I thought it was purchasing a weapon or ammunition for someone not lawfully entitled to do so himself.

You are combining two separate actions into one, a common mistake.

Buying a firearm from an FFL on behalf of another person is a straw purchase, violating 18 USC 922 (a)(6). Period, end of definition.

If the other person happens to be prohibited person, when the buyer provides the firearm to the prohibited person, they have committed that separate criminal act, violating 18 USC 922 (d).

In this case, if the brother obtains the firearm on behalf of the father-in-law he would be committing two felonies, the first "straw purchase" even though it is just a transfer, not a purchase, still violates 18 USC 922 (a)(6). Then giving the firearm back to the father-in-law would violate 18 USC 922 (a)(5).

18 USC 922 is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

 

[BeerSleeper]

My father in law recently retired from the Alaska Railroad. He is in the process of moving all of his possessions to his brothers home in Montana where they will sit until he finds a place to live. He is not moving to Montana, he's just using it as a staging area.

It sure sounds to me like he's presently a resident of Montana. He's moving, therefore no longer a resident of Alaska. The fact that he has intent to become a resident of some other state does not negate the fact he is presently residing in Montana. I would find out what is required to prove Montana residency, and see about acquiring that documentation. It does not necessarily have to be a driver's license, but if the FFL in question does not realize that, that will make it harder.