FFL's and parents buying for kids

[TexasRifleman]

Forgot to add in the second situation in my post above that we offered that we both pass a background check, but he (the clerk) would have none of it. Would that be legal or no?

I can't see why that would be an illegal transaction. If your brothers' was the name on the 4473 and called into NICS, then he is the purchaser, even if you loan him the money. Providing the money does not make you the purchaser, putting your name on the transfer paperwork makes you the purchaser, according to ATF.

If YOU were on the 4473 then later gave him the gun and he paid you back, that would be a straw purchase.

Problem is, from the store's viewpoint, that they don't know for sure that the activity isn't being done for the opposite reason, that you were paying for the gun and your brother was buying it for you.

So, it was not illegal what you were trying to do, but I can see why an FFL would walk away from it.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

The situation wankerjake described was the classic set up for an ATF sting(as far as the clerk knew). He sells your friend the gun knowing full well you paid for it and not knowing whether you handed it to him after leaving his store. The clerk would have been very foolish to take that risk. I sure wouldn't.

 

[Tacbandit]

Quote:
"I don't know many parents who shoot pink 10/22's or chipmunks. It is for their kids."


Exactly...+1

 

[TexasRifleman]

The situation wankerjake described was the classic set up for an ATF sting(as far as the clerk knew). He sells your friend the gun knowing full well you paid for it and not knowing whether you handed it to him after leaving his store. The clerk would have been very foolish to take that risk. I sure wouldn't.

Absolutely, but it wasn't illegal what they were trying to do. The FFL couldn't know that for sure so he's smart to walk away.

 

[JWF III]

I can't see why that would be an illegal transaction. If your brothers' was the name on the 4473 and called into NICS, then he is the purchaser, even if you loan him the money. Providing the money does not make you the purchaser, putting your name on the transfer paperwork makes you the purchaser, according to ATF.

That's exactly what a straw purchase is. The fact that they offered to each have a NICS check isn't relevant.

Person #1 gives money to person #2. Person #2 fills out the paperwork and has the NICS done. Who gets the gun has nothing to do with it. One person does the paperwork, and another pays for it, that's a straw purchase. That's illegal. If found out, that dealer will lose their liscense.

Wyman

 

[jimmyraythomason]

"Who gets the gun has nothing to do with it." Wrong. It has everything to do with it. The only thing that makes it a straw purchase is that person #1 winds up with the firearm.

 

[JWF III]

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

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Yes in the above scenario the clerck made the right decision FOR HIM. Had he made the sale (the facts being as we know them) no laws would have been broken. Not having the money does not make a person inelligible to purchase a firearm. The person who fills out form 4473 is THE purchaser. If another(who is legally barred from buying a gun) gives him the money(though providing the money isn't necessary) to buy it for them it becomes an illegal straw purchase. A straw purchase is intended to bypass laws to prevent a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm.

 

[NMGonzo]

Dad goes to a gunstore.

Buys gun.

Drives to Michaels.

Wraps gun box in wrapping paper, buys bow and sticks to wrapped gun box.

Dad puts gun under xmas tree.

Son is of legal age of owning gun? Ok

Son is not of legal age of owning gun? Dad is the keeper of the gun till son comes to age.

What is so difficult?

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Sounds good to me,NMGonzo.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Person #1 gives money to person #2. Person #2 fills out the paperwork and has the NICS done. Who gets the gun has nothing to do with it. One person does the paperwork, and another pays for it, that's a straw purchase. That's illegal. If found out, that dealer will lose their liscense.

Nope, even ATF says it's not the money but the name on the form and possession of the gun. Who gets the gun has EVERYTHING to do with it.

If it's only about the money then you could never use a credit card to buy a firearm, since the money is not coming from the person buying the gun, it's coming from a bank that is loaning the money.

Here is the ATF example:

An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.

Notice ATF cares about who fills out the 4473 and who gets the gun. This is not how the situation earlier in the thread happened (or would have happened).

The person filling out the 4473 and the person who would keep the gun, the purchaser, would be the same person. The temporary loan of money to BUY a gun doesn't meet straw purchase.

If I am at a store and I want a shotgun, and I'm 20 bucks short and my buddy loans me 20 that I pay back later that day at an ATM, I most certainly have NOT committed a straw purchase since I am the true purchaser of the firearm.

But that's why the dealer said no because he had no way of KNOWING for sure that's what was taking place.

 

[PT1911]

firearms can be purchased and given as gifts without legal consequences. Assuming the person can has no legal reason preventing them from owning a gun... My understanding is a straw man purchase is one person buying for another because he/she is not legally allowed to do that for himself/herself.

If age is the issue, then as stated above, dad keeps the gun til the child is of age...

Has anyone here NOT been given a gun as a gift at some point?

 

[NavyLCDR]

firearms can be purchased and given as gifts without legal consequences. Assuming the person can has no legal reason preventing them from owning a gun... My understanding is a straw man purchase is one person buying for another because he/she is not legally allowed to do that for himself/herself.

A straw purchase is when one person buys the firearm on behalf of another person. Period. End of definition. The legality of the final possessor of the firearm to possess or purchase that firearm themselves has no bearing on straw purchase at all.

1. Dad buys gun for son as a gift - not a straw purchase.
2. I loan my friend money to buy the gun for himself, and he buys the gun with the money I lent him - not a straw purchase.
3. My friend gives me money, I go to the gun store, buy a firearm, give that firearm to my same friend who gave me the money - that IS a straw purchase regardless of whether my friend could have legally done the deal himself or not.
4. Dad buys handgun for son as a gift - son is under 18 - dad gives son the handgun anyway as a gift - still NOT a straw purchase. It is providing a prohibited person with a firearm, though, which is a completely separate act than the straw purchase.

And, BTW, in Federal statutes, a gift is a gift for anyone, it does not have to be between relatives.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

NavyLT all of your facts are technically correct,my question to you would be "under what circumstances would an eligible person have another eligible person buy a gun for them?" If there is nothing preventing Person #1 from buying his own gun,why would he have person #2 buy it for him(and fill out the form)? There is nothing preventing person #2 saying he gifted it to person #1. What I'm saying is how would the case be prosecuted? I would think the government would have a difficult time proving it was not a gift.

 

[Walkalong]

but they're too young to legally have the firearm without supervision then let them help you pick what is best for them to shoot, but keep it as your's until they are old enough to legally possess it.

Exactly. I recently bought a .357 for my 18 year old son. It stays in my possession, in my safe. I take it with us to shoot. I put it away when we get home. It will go to him when he turns 21.

 

[chevyforlife21]

keep in mind all the firearm companys make childrens guns like pink cricket rifles,10/22s,pink remington 870s. etc... those are were deff. made for kids. it must be ok to do.

 

[ghoster]

by the time i was 18 i had several rifles, shotguns and pistols.
i would go in to old castners and give him some money and walk out with my gun, some took all summer to pay off.
never filled out any paperwork untill i was of age.
i guess dad must have done the paperwork when he stoped by.
i never thought about it before, i will have to ask pop about it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

keep in mind all the firearm companys make childrens guns like pink cricket rifles,10/22s,pink remington 870s. etc... those are were deff. made for kids. it must be ok to do.

Sure, it's OK for me to buy a gun for my child to shoot, I just retain ownership.

This isn't complicated stuff, some people just look for things to worry about.

NavyLT all of your facts are technically correct,my question to you would be "under what circumstances would an eligible person have another eligible person buy a gun for them?" If there is nothing preventing Person #1 from buying his own gun,why would he have person #2 buy it for him(and fill out the form)?

You see this one with people that want to stay "off the record" with their gun purchases, no paper trail etc. You are right that it would be extremely hard to prove that friend A didn't just buy the gun, get tired of it and sell it to friend B a couple of days later (which is perfectly legal)

And really, technically straw purchases like this happen l but I would hope that the ATF, if they have to exist at all, have better things to do than chase this kind of thing so I doubt there are many cases like this that come up.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I would seriously wonder about someone who would risk loosing their second amendment rights by commiting a felony doing something that they themselves can do legally.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I would seriously wonder about someone who would risk loosing their second amendment rights by commiting a felony doing something that they themselves can do legally.

Yeah it's pretty dumb but I've heard morons bragging about it occasionally on gun boars.

"The gubment ain't gonna know I got this here gun 'cause I talked my brother in law Billy Bob into buying it for me so when they come to comfiscator it they will go to his house first"

No kidding, I read something once that was just about that word for word lol.

 

[NavyLCDR]

NavyLT all of your facts are technically correct,my question to you would be "under what circumstances would an eligible person have another eligible person buy a gun for them?" If there is nothing preventing Person #1 from buying his own gun,why would he have person #2 buy it for him(and fill out the form)? There is nothing preventing person #2 saying he gifted it to person #1. What I'm saying is how would the case be prosecuted? I would think the government would have a difficult time proving it was not a gift.

1. As someone mentioned already, someone who absolutely, positively does not want government intervention because they feel so strongly about their rights.

2. It could be a trafficker in weapons that doesn't want to raise suspicion by having multiple firearms purchases in his name so he pays a little extra to have his buddies buy firearms for him and spread out the purchases over several different people. If the trafficker hasn't gotten caught yet, he would still be legal to buy them himself.

I know these are way far out there examples, but it is important to realize that there are two separate statutes.... one is the straw purchase (which really is only lying on the 4473 - are you the actual purchaser), the other is furnishing a firearm to a prohibited person. Either act can occur by itself, or the acts can occur together, but they are two completely separate issues and not related to each other.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Understood. I should think that the latter is far more prevelant than the former.

 

[FROGO207]

You know......common sense is not so common anymore!! So now we have a law legislated into our lives about how to buy firearms. 99% of the population will do the right thing but the 1% of bad apples will make it harder for the rest of us to function. Oh-well I tried my best to be perfect today! Hopefully the members now know whats legal and whats not. BTW I understand why the FFL did not allow the sale and would have done the same thing not knowing the real answer and having to guess intent of purchase.