A straw purchase is any purchase whereby the purchaser is knowingly acquiring an item or service for someone who is, for whatever reason, unable to purchase the item or service themselves.
In my above situation, #1's not trying to buy it, he's not filling out the paperwork. Person #2 cannot buy the gun because the person doens't have the money.
The law does not distinguish between someone who is purchasing on behalf of a person who legally cannot purchase or possess a firearm, and one who is not.
Here's a very relevant question that could effect a lot...
Who is the
legal puchaser of the firearm? Is it the person that is paying (commonly referred to as purchsing) for the firearm? Or is it the person that is filling out the paperwork?
If legally it is the person paying for it, the person filling out the paperwork (if done honestly) couldn't buy the firearm because the 4473 form ask "Are you the purchaser of the firearm?" If he lies that's another set of charges for purgery on a Federal form.
Look at it like a car...You go and buy a new car and get a loan from the bank. Who ends up with the Title? It's not you. The bank has the title until you pay them in full. From the dealer, even though you "bought" the car, the bank was the legal owner/purchaser at the time of transaction.
Another question from wankerjake's situation...
If wankerjake had not even been there, could his brother have completed the transaction himself? The way I read it, no, because his debit card was a temp. Granted, not an illegal reason, but he still couldn't complete it. The way I read it, this makes it a straw purchase.
With wankerjake offering to pay for it, to the FFL, that made it an obvious violation.
Now if he'd (wj) said (before all the discussion of the debit card and the paperwork) "Let me buy that for you for your birthday." And then wankerjake proceeded to do the paperwork, it would be a perfectly legal gift. Then if he wanted, his brother could buy him a "Thank You" card (not really but you see what I mean) and give wankerjake a gift of equal monetary value in the form of cash, all would be well. But if all this were previously planned out, there would be a case for "Conspiracy to Commit a Felony". Though with the 5th Amend., it'd be a very hard case to prove.
IMO, with what he knew, the dealer made the right call.
Granted, those are not the type of transactions the laws were wrote to stop. But it'd still be an illegal purchase IMO.
Wyman