From Father to Son, is this a straw purchase?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is only a "straw purchase" is you are otherwise unable to own a firearm. As to the transfer, that is Maryland law at work, federal law doesn't make a distinction.

Edit: I think that you will have to get the gun transfered to you when you are "of age", as I believe that Maryland does have something on the books in regards to private sales (the oft mentioned gun show loophole). There might be an exception for "family".
 
Bingo, brickeyee. The amount of misunderstanding flying around this thread is liable to get someone thrown in jail for a federal gun crime. Anyone reading this topic, if you get nothing else out of it, HEED POST 27. Whether we like the law is one thing, but it's pretty hard to fight for 2A when you're on an extended stay in the Gray Bar Hotel for not understanding the laws you were trying to repeal.
 
Let me make this perfectly clear:
My father and I intend to follow the law no matter what it is.
As of yet, we have done as the FFL said, which I understand is legal.
Since I cannot pay him yet without it being illegal, it will remain in his hands until I turn 18, at which time I will pay for the weapon through an FFL as is legal. The confusion was due to the fact that my father is a NH resident, and I sometimes forget that.
The rifle is not in my hands right now. It is in his. I got a small period of time the other day to look it over and such, but it is not my rifle.
One of the reasons I started this thread is because I want to follow the law, however, I didn't know what the law is, exactly. (Turns out, I was looking in the wrong places) I wanted to confirm what the FFL said on here. It has been confirmed. We will follow it. I am not trying to get around the law, in any way, shape, or form.
Thank you, gentlemen, for the information and words of caution. When I do pay for the rifle, it will be through an FFL and with a background check as is legal.
Good day.
 
Sir, I am not certain as to the state to state however, by definition a "straw purchase" occurs only when you give someone the money to purchase something for you be it guns, real estate or whatever. It sounds like your dad bought a rifle and will be giving it to you. Assuming you live in the same state it is simply a gift or it could be a resale if you buy it from your dad. Unless you gave him to money to buy it in the first place it is not a straw purchase. I will make the statement that I have no idea about MD law and what extra they may require.
 
Maryland Laws re firearm transfers

First, I'm no lawyer.

The Maryland firearm laws that I've found are links in
http://www.mcrkba.org/MarylandCode.html

Maryland's regulation concerning straw purchases are given here

So far as Maryland is concerned, straw purchases pertain to what they call regulated firearms. Scan down the page here for a definition of regulated firearms in Maryland. Regulated firearms mostly include handguns and "bad" semi-automatic rifles.

I don't believe the rifle in question is a regulated firearm to Maryland. Maryland regulations appear to apply mostly to regulated firearms and less so to non-regulated firearms. Mostly, Maryland defines what is not legal to do. A purchase of a regulated firearm by a Maryland resident outside of Maryland is controlled by the Maryland Code here and for rifles or shotguns which are not regulated here.

Maryland code is scattered incoherently in a number of articles. It is easy to overlook a provision. However, it appears that Maryland bans allowing access to firearms by children (under age 16) except when supervised by a person age 18 or older.

Were your father a Maryland resident who had legally bought the rifle, it appears he could hand it to you and you could legally possess it, but not own it, so far as Maryland law was concerned. Maryland does not permit private sale of regulated firearms (they must be transfered through an FFL or by the State police). I'm not sure, but it may be the same for any firearm.

Because your father isn't a Maryland resident, federal regulations would apply also to the transfer of ownership. It sounds as if your father has already purchased the firearm. If he hadn't, I believe it would have been legal for him to come to Maryland, and accompany you to purchase the rifle in your name under a stipulation you wouldn't be given possession of it until age 18. It is legal for minors to own some firearms in some states, but occasionally isn't legal for them to possess them. He could then have left the firearm in the custody of your Mother until your 18th birthday.

I don't know of any provision of federal or Maryland law that would have prevented that transaction.

I welcome any correction to this understanding -- but would appreciate a link to the relevant federal or Maryland code.
 
...
Maryland's regulation concerning straw purchases are given here

So far as Maryland is concerned, straw purchases pertain to what they call regulated firearms. Scan down the page here for a definition of regulated firearms in Maryland. Regulated firearms mostly include handguns and "bad" semi-automatic rifles.

I don't believe the rifle in question is a regulated firearm to Maryland. Maryland regulations appear to apply mostly to regulated firearms and less so to non-regulated firearms. Mostly, Maryland defines what is not legal to do. A purchase of a regulated firearm by a Maryland resident outside of Maryland is controlled by the Maryland Code here and for rifles or shotguns which are not regulated here.
...
Click to expand...

Phil Lee,
Had Nolo paid his father in advance, which we all now understand he didn't, the "Straw Man Purchace" laws to which we are refering are Federal statutes, not MD statutes.

The transfer issues in question are regulated on a state level.
 
Straw purchases are near impossible to trace and prove its another pointless law on the book that will only get a few people here and there otherwise its very difficult to enforce.

Even if you somehow get caught and get arrested if you get a good lawyer you can probably get the charges dropped especially if you have a clean record.

I don't see how buying a gun for someone who cant buy one because of a stupid age restriction on handgun sales but can otherwise can own one through private sale or "gifting" from parent is a crime it is not hurting anyone and it is usually up to the purchaser's moral judgment if he or she wants to buy it for him or her.

Felony has little meaning now since every second little nonviolent crime is a Felony five years or 1 week in jail there or having it ruin my job career for many years the police can just shoot me in the head with there .40's if I would have to spend years in prison not going to comply with that problem solved for next life.
 
Markk,

Insofar as federal laws are concerned, this topic is an old one on THR. I refer you to a post by Zundfolge on September 2nd, 2006, 10:29 AM:
It baffles me how over complicated people make this whole Straw Purchase thing ... its a very simple concept. So simple in fact that the ATF has produced a cheezy cartoon to explain it.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ffrrg/theater/toon4.html
Click to expand...
 
The proper approach is for the Mother of this minor to purchase and give the firearm to the son (assuming that he is presently living in Maryland with his Mother). If Sarah Brady can legally give her son a firearm, so could this Mother.

Reminder:
Noted anti-gun activist Sarah Brady, founder of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.), purchased a Remington .30-06 rifle with a scope and safety lock at a Lewes, Delaware gun shop, for her son, James Brady, Jr., "as a Christmas present" in 2000. According to Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler, this purchase was a "straw purchase". Brady confessed to this in her book, A Good Fight.
However, there does not appear to be validity to the claim that Brady violated the federal "straw purchase" law as the actual purchaser, because under Delaware law, a "straw purchase" occurs only if the ultimate recipient is "not qualified to legally purchase, own or possess a firearm in this State." There has been no evidence, much less a legal determination, that Brady's son was such a prohibited person.
Click to expand...

The cheesy cartoon from the ATF (previous post) explains how gifting does not fall under straw purchase regulations.
 
Phil L
What the OP explains in the first post is a StrawMan Purchase, period. He then goes on to add information in subsequent posts that state otherwise.
Please go back and reread the thread before your bad advice gets someone in trouble. The video you brought up states that the exact same scenario as is mentioned in the OP is, in fact, illegal. Had Nolo stated originaly that it was being bought by his father as a gift, that would have be fine, but he did not, he said that "his father was buying it but he (Nolo) did pay for it", this is a "textbook" strawman purchase.
Please note that Nolo does correct this information in subsequent posts.

Dmxx9900, the difficulty in enforcement doesn't make it any less illegal...
 
Huddog said:
Sir, I am not certain as to the state to state however, by definition a "straw purchase" occurs only when you give someone the money to purchase something for you be it guns, real estate or whatever. It sounds like your dad bought a rifle and will be giving it to you. Assuming you live in the same state it is simply a gift or it could be a resale if you buy it from your dad. Unless you gave him to money to buy it in the first place it is not a straw purchase. I will make the statement that I have no idea about MD law and what extra they may require.
Click to expand...
That is not the definition for a "straw purchase" of a firearm. A straw purchase may involve the prohibited person secretly providing the money, but the actual definition of a straw purchase is simply when an eligible buyer purchases a firearm for a person who is prohibited (for whatever reason) from buying it for him/herself. It is not necessary that the final recipient provide the money in order for a purchase to be a straw purchase.
 
Nolo said:
Note that I did pay for the rifle.
Click to expand...
I would like to clear this up a bit.
Technically this is untrue, though I didn't think it would matter at the time (I later caught myself, while I was writing the title). I have raised the money for the rifle, although I have not actually paid my father for it. I have not physically handed the cash over, though I do have it. I'm sorry about the confusion, if you'd like I can fix my OP.
 
markk admonishes:
What the OP explains in the first post is a StrawMan Purchase, period. He then goes on to add information in subsequent posts that state otherwise.
Please go back and reread the thread before your bad advice gets someone in trouble.
Click to expand...

Don't presume I can't or didn't read.

The only advice I gave was that the Mother should buy and give the rifle to the son. There would be, then, no question of the legality of the transaction.

As to the question of getting people in trouble, buying legal products for legal owners shouldn't require a lawyer to work though the details -- at least not for protected rights of the American people. That the boy can have the rifle via one path in a completely legal way via the Mother but not via the Father had better be based on something better than the GCA of 1968.

Of course, the separation of Mother and Father raises questions of custody and other questions as to whether the Mother would agree to the purchase.

My "advice" is to let the Mother buy the rifle or wait until his 18th birthday and buy the rifle himself.

Now, markk, if that isn't sufficiently confined to the original question for you, tough. This may be a legal forum, but some of us are interested in solving problems legally, not necessarily lawyering the fine issues.
 
There are two separate offenses under federal law. Let's keep them straight.

1. Transferring a firearm to a prohibited person. This is a federal felony, but it is not a straw purchase. Calling it a straw purchase just confuses everyone. Prohibited persons are defined at 18 U.S.C. 922 (b) (c) and (d). The crime is not the purchase, but the later transfer.

Any person who lives in a state other than your state of residence is a prohibited person. Only a dealer can sell to an out of state resident, and the dealer can only sell long guns.

2. Claiming on the form 4473 to be the "actual purchaser" when you are not. This is a straw purchase. Whether the final purchaser is eligible or not is irrelevant. If you buy a gun with the intention of reselling it, you are acting as a dealer and need a license. This is prohibited by U.S.C. 18 section 922 (a) (6). The crime is not really the purchase, but the lie on the form 4473, which is perjury. It may seem like a small deal, but ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby about that.
 
That is not the definition for a "straw purchase" of a firearm. A straw purchase may involve the prohibited person secretly providing the money, but the actual definition of a straw purchase is simply when an eligible buyer purchases a firearm for a person who is prohibited (for whatever reason) from buying it for him/herself.
Click to expand...

Once again, this statement, while often repeated on the internet, is false. There does not need to be a "prohibited person" involved.

From a post I wrote last year:

Here is what the Federal Firearms Regulations Guide has to say on the subject, emphasis added:


Quote:
16. "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 from the
licensee.
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.
Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of
the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the
true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above
example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr.
Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form
4473. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of
straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the
actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the
dealer's records.
Click to expand...
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/geninfo.pdf , page 25 of 32

I am aware also of US vs. Charles Ray Polk. No. 96-40836, Fifth Circuit, which seems to say that if you are both legal to own a gun you will be OK, but the ATF doesn't seem to agree with this, and they will be the ones prosecuting.

It has also been pointed out in the past, by people much more legally "with it" than I am, that a minor child, unless emancipated by the courts, has no real right to property. Essentially, Nolo's parents could take away his clothes, his money, etc., as long as he is their minor, and he wouldn't have any legal recourse. From this, it has been pointed out that Nolo does not actually own his money, and that money is in fact his father's anyway, so there could be a technicality to get him off even if he did pay for the gun. I wouldn't want to rely on this technicality though. You'd probably get off, and these cases are notoriously hard to prosecute anyway, but if they wanted to press the issue it would cost you.
 
Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of
the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the
true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above
example,
Click to expand...
Just ask Dad to give it to you.
 
As long as you do not supply the money to purchase the firearm it would be a gift.
If you gave dad $300 to buy the gun FOR YOU it IS a straw purchase.

While the odds of anything happening between family members is likely very small, the consequences of the event being detected are very large.
 
Note that I did pay for the rifle. Does this count as a straw purchase?
Click to expand...
So you were the actual purchaser of the firearm, but your father filled out a Form 4473 saying that he (your father) was the actual purchaser of the firearm, when in truth, you were the actual purchaser, not your father? If your answer is yes, then it was a straw purchase.
 
It would only be a straw-man sale if YOU were a prohibited person.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely false.

Anytime someone fills out the 4473 claiming to be the actual purchaser when they are not, it is an illegal straw purchase. It does not matter whether the actual purchaser, who is utilizing the "strawman" for the paper work, is prohibited or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Interstate Familial Transfer/Straw Purchase Questio
Replies
3
Views
704
gbran
G
grampajack
  • Locked
Is this a straw purchase?
Replies
18
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
C
  • Locked
"Straw Purchase" question
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
crossrhodes
C
Y
  • Locked
Straw Purchase?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
DMF
D
F
  • Locked
Straw Purchasers
Replies
16
Views
797
Derby FALs
D
Back
Top