Gun store what to do

[MattTheHat]

With regard to the original post, Personally, I would have kept my mouth shut. As others have pointed out, what was overheard could have easily been misunderstood.


-Matt

 

[NavyLCDR]

He could have had an out of state ID.
My girlfriend is from across the state line and we go gun shopping together.
If we are here and she sees one she likes, I get it for her. Same if we are there.
I have bought a few for her daughter too.

Very nice. You both are routinely committing Federal felonies.

Every time you purchase a gun and transfer it to her, a resident of a different state, you violate 18 USC 922 (a)(5) and she violates 18 USC 922 (a)(3).

When she purchases a gun and transfers it to you, she violates 18 USC 922 (a)(5) and you violate 18 USC 922 (a)(3).

In addition to being charged with your own felonies, you both could also be charged with conspiring with each other to commit felonies, and if the FFL is aware of your illegal transactions you could also be charged with conspiring with the FFL to commit felonies.

Very nice little situation all around.

 

[rellascout]

Look at the OP....

I stopped by my local gun store to pick up some ammo, and I couldn't help but notice this couple. I may be wrong put they looked like noobs. That didn't bother me, I was a noob not that long ago. What bothered me was the fact that it was a total straw purchase. The man picked out a Rugar 357 and and S&W AR 15, however, he had the woman do the paper work. When the man at the counter walked to the front of the store, I heard the man say "If they ask don't tell them you are buying these for me." The clerk got a little suspicious when he came back and the man told him that he wanted a red dot for the ar and 200 rounds of ammo. So the clerk asked if the gun was for him or the woman, the woman made this huge deal about how the gun was for her, and that she thinks that she will need it soon because the end is coming. So here I am witnessing a straw purchase. I just didn't say anything and paid for my ammo.
So here is the question did I do the right thing or should I have said something?

There is no 100% concrete evidence contained in this post. There is no way to determine the intent or the validity of the statement. "If they ask don't tell them you are buying these for me." Therefore, I do not think the OP is in a position to state that this is 100% a straw purchase.

Now if the person who was conducting the transaction had heard this they can make a judgement call on if they want to proceed. It is afterall their butt that will be in a sling if they make the wrong call. It is their job to make this type of call.

I think that there is too much missing from the story the OP has presented to draw any definitive conclusion. At that point I would MMOB.

 

[Sig88]

Look at the OP....



There is no 100% concrete evidence contained in this post. There is no way to determine the intent or the validity of the statement. "If they ask don't tell them you are buying these for me." Therefore, I do not think the OP is in a position to state that this is 100% a straw purchase.

Now if the person who was conducting the transaction had heard this they can make a judgement call on if they want to proceed. It is afterall their butt that will be in a sling if they make the wrong call. It is their job to make this type of call.

I think that there is too much missing from the story the OP has presented to draw any definitive conclusion. At that point I would MMOB.

Why would you not provide information to the clerk that could potentially save him alot of aggravation or charges? I can see the pros of the law but side with the belief that the law conflicts with the Constitution. However, I do not believe that you should just ignore the law because you disagree with it or don't want to cause problems. If the OP is fairly certain that he heard those words and was saying HE wanted this and that. Its reasonable to believe that something may in fact be up. Let the clerk be completely informed and let him make the decision, especially if this is a shop that you frequent.

My two cents.

 

[Nushif]

f the OP is fairly certain that he heard those words and was saying HE wanted this and that. Its reasonable to believe that something may in fact be up. Let the clerk be completely informed [...]

Dunno. I don't think I'd appreciate random strangers who overheard three seconds of my "character" informing *anyone* that I "may or may not" be about to do a federal crime.
The problem with the notion that anyone should report anything is that it basically devolves in a lot of hearsay and what amounts to accusations. Or can you figure out a way to tell someone about to make a decision whether to sell a gun or not that maybe he should reconsider ... *without* using influence or the lens you used to gather the information?
"Herr Offizier, I heard zat Herr Schmidt was saying to his waif to go to ze kellar... now I don't know wat zis is about, but you better not sell him zis new gun." You get my drift?
It's similar to showing soundbites from politician's speeches. They *really don't* give you the whole picture.

 

[MattTheHat]

If the OP is fairly certain that he heard those words and was saying HE wanted this and that. Its reasonable to believe that something may in fact be up.

FAIRLY CERTAIN? Is this *really* the standard we want to use for deciding whether or not we quite possibly slander another?

I can think of at least a half dozen different scenarios in which, despite what the OP saw and heard could still occur in a perfectly legal transaction. For instance:

The man wants to buy the firearms for his wife, as a gift. They drive (possibly some distance) to the gun store, only to find the guy forgot his wallet. Or maybe, he forgot to get cash and would therefore need to pay by check, but he knows, for whatever reason (past credit problems or bounced checks) that his check will not pass approval. So he tells his wife (or SO) to fill out the paperwork, since she'll have to use her cash or check or card to actually fund the firearms, and he feels the gun store personnel (possibly from past experience) will balk at the purchase otherwise.

What about the red dot scope and other accessories?

Maybe they'll both be using the firearms. As such, maybe he *does* want the red dot scope and whatever else was mentioned for when he uses them.

This is my whole problem with people who butt in to other folks' business.

Say one of our well-meaning posters who indicated they'd say something did indeed speak up. Why should the two customers have to explain their business right there in front of the store personnel and other customers because Mr. or Mrs. Nosey chimed in to accuse them of wrongdoing?

Me, I'll respect other folk's right to conduct their personal business as they see fit. I'll mind my own business and keep my mouth shut.


-Matt

 

[fiat128]

The whole thing of being able to purchase a gun for someone else as a "gift" seems to negate the straw purchase rule to me.

What's to stop someone from claiming the van load of Ak-47s is a "gift for my cousin Pedro"?

Every pink childs size .22 ever sold is a straw purchase if you think about it.

 

[MattTheHat]

The whole thing of being able to purchase a gun for someone else as a "gift" seems to negate the straw purchase rule to me.

There is no prohibition of purchasing a firearm intended as a gift for another person (who can legally own said firearm). That's not a straw purchase. It's only a straw purchase if it's purchased *for* another person, (as in on their behalf) for whatever reason, presumably because the other person is not able to purchase the firearm themselves (convicted felon, lives in another state, under age, etc.)


-Matt

 

[Sig88]

Dunno. I don't think I'd appreciate random strangers who overheard three seconds of my "character" informing *anyone* that I "may or may not" be about to do a federal crime.
The problem with the notion that anyone should report anything is that it basically devolves in a lot of hearsay and what amounts to accusations. Or can you figure out a way to tell someone about to make a decision whether to sell a gun or not that maybe he should reconsider ... *without* using influence or the lens you used to gather the information?
"Herr Offizier, I heard zat Herr Schmidt was saying to his waif to go to ze kellar... now I don't know wat zis is about, but you better not sell him zis new gun." You get my drift?
It's similar to showing soundbites from politician's speeches. They *really don't* give you the whole picture.

So if I unintentionally hear a discussion relating to a crime it should go unreported/unnoticed? Now I do see the dilemma with this issue and how it can be flipped to other scenarios. I know its a tough issue but I standby what I said.

 

[Sig88]

FAIRLY CERTAIN? Is this *really* the standard we want to use for deciding whether or not we quite possibly slander another?

I can think of at least a half dozen different scenarios in which, despite what the OP saw and heard could still occur in a perfectly legal transaction. For instance:

The man wants to buy the firearms for his wife, as a gift. They drive (possibly some distance) to the gun store, only to find the guy forgot his wallet. Or maybe, he forgot to get cash and would therefore need to pay by check, but he knows, for whatever reason (past credit problems or bounced checks) that his check will not pass approval. So he tells his wife (or SO) to fill out the paperwork, since she'll have to use her cash or check or card to actually fund the firearms, and he feels the gun store personnel (possibly from past experience) will balk at the purchase otherwise.

What about the red dot scope and other accessories?

Maybe they'll both be using the firearms. As such, maybe he *does* want the red dot scope and whatever else was mentioned for when he uses them.

This is my whole problem with people who butt in to other folks' business.

Say one of our well-meaning posters who indicated they'd say something did indeed speak up. Why should the two customers have to explain their business right there in front of the store personnel and other customers because Mr. or Mrs. Nosey chimed in to accuse them of wrongdoing?

Me, I'll respect other folk's right to conduct their personal business as they see fit. I'll mind my own business and keep my mouth shut.


-Matt

Yes there are multiple possibilities for any particular behavior whether they are legal or illegal.

And I didn't know that "fairly certain" had a automatics percentage tied to it. I'll be more specific. If I am 90% certain of what I heard and believe is happening I will report it.

I also don't remember saying anything about calling the police, only reporting what I heard to the clerk for them to have a better grasp at the situation. If he decides to proceed or not to proceed with the sale at least he did it with a bigger picture.

 

[MattTheHat]

So if I unintentionally hear a discussion relating to a crime it should go unreported/unnoticed?

That's the problem. What the OP heard may or may not have been a discussion of a straw purchase.

And I didn't know that "fairly certain" had a automatics percentage tied to it.

I have no idea what you mean. I never mentioned automatic anything or percentages.

If I am 90% certain of what I heard and believe is happening I will report it.

If you aren't 100% sure of what's going on, you could very well be slandering the other party.

I also don't remember saying anything about calling the police...

Once again, I have no idea what you mean by this. I didn't mention calling the police either.


-Matt

 

[rellascout]

Without knowing all the facts, MYOB and let the gun shop people handle it.

QFT

 

[Magoo]

POst #33

I agree I could have easily misunderstood. But the man got the cash out of his wallet for the woman to pay for the guns with.

Bewtween what the OP reporting hearing, and seeing this, a lot of those "other scenarios" go out the window as reasonable explanations. I say reasonable because they would not be expected under reasonable circumstances that would not constitute a straw purchase. If there was a explanation that made their situation legal, they could have defended it.

I don't necessarily agree with everything that DQs someone from gun ownership- it's more than just convicted felons. I also don't feel it's my duty to police my neighbors -BUT- I hope I would've said something the same as I hope I'd say something if I was "pretty sure" my neighbor was running a meth lab.

 

[BigN]

You did the right thing. Total lack of facts

 

[Jonah71]

I have bought my guns from the same shop for 2 years now. They give me fair prices, ammo discounts and freebies. I also save time driving to the range by shooting several hundred rounds a week behind their store. (sometimes with ammo purchased elsewhere)
I would feel like a complete jerk not to give them a heads up even if I just suspected something like that was going on. Although I think I would do the same at any gun store.

 

[Blue Line]

let your conscience be your guide

 

[woad_yurt]

If I was gunstore owner, I'd surely want to know if someone in my store said to his companion "If they ask don't tell them you are buying these for me."

And, if anything legally inconvenient resulted from my not knowing that, I'd have a massive bone to pick with someone who knew but kept his mouth shut. The first thing out of my mouth would be "You knew about it the whole time???!!! Why didn't you say something?"

The OP called it "my local gunstore." When someone refers to something as "my," there's a connotation of familiarity there. If not, folks usually use "the" or "a." It sounds like he's been there before and may possibly be a regular. Sometimes the ol' government gets its teeth into people and it's extremely hard to get it to let go. Also, the legal fees alone can sink someone who's completely innocent of any wrongdoing. I'd feel like a crumb if the store owner got involved in a huge hassle because I kept my mouth shut.

I guess my conscience has blossomed a bit as I've gotten older.

 

[MattTheHat]

But, what "legally inconvenient" thing could occur?

If the salesperson suspects a straw sale, he can (and should) stop the transaction. If he/she doesn't suspect anything, whether it is a straw purchase or not, how is that going to come back to the store owner?

Is there some law that I'm not aware of that requires the store owner to somehow divine the intentions of the buyer? I'm asking honestly, because I keep reading replies that mention legal trouble for the store owner but can't figure out what those would be if he made the sale in good faith, without suspecting a straw purchase.


-Matt

 

[gym]

I'm with Sam on this, not enough info to go making a mess out of what may have been an error in language or hearing. Ther could be a hundred different reasons he wanted to do it that way. No use guessing.

 

[Sig88]

That's the problem. What the OP heard may or may not have been a discussion of a straw purchase.



I have no idea what you mean. I never mentioned automatic anything or percentages.



If you aren't 100% sure of what's going on, you could very well be slandering the other party.



Once again, I have no idea what you mean by this. I didn't mention calling the police either.


-Matt

Sorry I was unclear. I brought up percentages and such because what should be the "standard" to REPORT a potential crime.

Slander requires the act to be "malicious, false and defamatory." I don't see how reporting a potential crime is malicious unless you knowingly reported a false crime in order to defame. I don't see how this could be the case unless there is relationship between the accused and the accuser prior to the accuser's claims. Was there motivation for laying the accusation of a crime? If motivation exists (i.e. accuser used to date the female), then maybe slander exists.


The police comment wasn't meant for you but the poster before you. Sorry.

 

[Neverwinter]

But, what "legally inconvenient" thing could occur?

If the salesperson suspects a straw sale, he can (and should) stop the transaction. If he/she doesn't suspect anything, whether it is a straw purchase or not, how is that going to come back to the store owner?

The only legal repercussions would be inconvenient investigation and monitoring by the ATF and local law enforcement as in several other cases of gun stores which were the retail sources of guns used in crimes. Those stores were compliant with the law and even went beyond in denying customers displaying straw buying indicators, but they still had to go through that.

 

[TexasBill]

I know this is probably going to sound like a really dim question, but I think I'm missing something, so I'll ask.

When I bought my pistol I had to apply for a pistol permit, have the background check done, be issued the permit, and then took that - along with my DL - to the gun shop to purchase. They kept the permit, and I also had to fill out several more pages of additional paperwork. Signatures everywhere, etc., etc.

So I don't understand how these people went in and purchased (the Ruger) at all, no matter which one of them it was doing it. Can someone fill me in, because I find the scenario, and "What would you do?" question an interesting one.

I guess "straw sale" has something to do with this.

Your state has a permit system; many states do not. In Texas, for example, one can walk into a gun store, select the firearm they wish to purchase, fill out the form 4473, pass the NICS check, pay for the gun and walk out of the store with it. The whole process (other than selecting that nice new gun!) might take 30 minutes.

IIRC, the OP mentioned that the guy used his funds to pay for the purchase. This would have been one more occasion for the clerk to ask about the purchase. Seems to me the clerk had more than one opportunity to ask some serious questions without any help from anyone.

 

[TriTone]

Contact the store manager/owner and let them know what went down and that you're sorry you didn't speak up at the time but just weren't sure how to handle the situation.

Do the right thing; as others have said, if he didnt want anything in his name or the background check, there is a reason, and it can't be good.

Do your part to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Do the right thing You don't know if there is something sketchy going on or not, but when it comes down to it, I bet the majority of us here at the high road will fully support the background checking procedure and following federal laws.

As unlikely as it is, if you see that guys face on the news in the future after some sort of crime where someone was hurt with one of the firearms you saw her purchase for him, how will it make you feel that you might have been able to prevent that gun violence? It would make me sick, play it safe. You shouldn't feel guilty for doing the right thing, when they're not, whether ill intent is there or not.

 

[Corey]

I would probably try to discretely let the clerk know what I heard and let him do what he wants with the information. The fact is that he is not required to sell any gun to any particular person and he is free to ask any questions he wants to satisfy himself that it is a legal sale. The customer is also equally free to take their business elsewhere.

What I find to be of concern is the misunderstanding and misinformation about who a transferee is and what constitutes a straw purchase. It really isn't that complicated and the 4473 form has instructions and explainations in addition to the resources ATF makes available to dealers.

First off, just to be clear, it doesn't matter if the person who the gun is for can pass a background check and purchase a gun legally, if the have someone else do it for them it is still an illegal straw purchase. I have had men shop for a gun, pick one out for themselves and when I had them the form the call their wife over to have her fill it out. When I explain that they cannot do that I have had the man say something to the effect of "I can legally own a gun, I just don't want my name on some government form" or "yeah it's my gun, but I want it in her name and she is going to pay you for it". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I don't actually care who pays for the gun, I care about who will own the gun. Yes you can give a gun as a gift under federal law, says so right on the form, and they don't have to be a family member. But you can only give it to someone who is a resident of the same state as yourself and you can have any reason to believe they are a prohibited person.

If you are purchasing a gun as a gift for someone and that person is in the store with you at the time of the purchase and I as the dealer know you are buying it as a gift for that person that is fine. The person receiving the gift will fill out the 4473 and the person giving the gift will pay at the register. The receiver of the gift is the transferee, I know they are taking possession of the gun at that time, it doesn't matter who gives me the money.

Two quick examples to clarify. A family comes up to the counter, mom, dad and two sons. After some discussion and looking, the sons each pick out a handgun and mom tells me that the are buying the handguns as gifts for their sons. I sake the sons their ages, one is 21 and the other is 20. I hand the 21 year old a 4473 and the mom a 4473 and the fill them out. Both guns are rung up as one transaction and mom pays for it with a check that has both mom and dad's names on it. No problems, everybody (including ATF) is happy.
Another time customer comes in from about 200 miles away during a big sale. He is buying a Remington 870 for himself. While filling out the form one of his neighbors calls him and as he is talking he tells him about the great deal he is getting and offers, "you want me to pick one up for you too and you can pay me back later?" I have no reason to think his friend is a prohibited person. I am 100% certain the guy buying the shotgun has any intention other than doing a favor for his friend. I cannot legally sell him the second shotgun. When I told him this he was very apologetic and was worried that he could not get the first gun. I reassured him that I knew he did not intend to do anything wrong but that they way the law is written I cannot knowingly sell him a gun that is for someone else. I also explained that since I was quite certain the first gun was for himself I could still sell him that one.

It is up to the dealer to make a decision on whether or not to complete a sale based on what information the dealer has available. But if the dealer completes the sale he has to be able to justify it to himself and the ATF. If a gun I sold properly were misused I would feel bad about it, but not guilty. If a gun I sold when I knew I should not have sold it were to be misused I would bear some of the guilt even if I never got caught. I don't want to have to live with that.

 

[jerkface11]

So if I unintentionally hear a discussion relating to a crime it should go unreported/unnoticed? Now I do see the dilemma with this issue and how it can be flipped to other scenarios. I know its a tough issue but I standby what I said.

If it's a victimless "crime" I wouldn't report it. This goes beyond even that as the law that may have been broken is in direct conflict with the second amendment. I wouldn't even THINK of reporting a crime that breaks an unconstitutional law.