Guns & Ammo article admitting to a felony?

[ETSU_Gal]

I was at a friend’s house and ran across the May, 2013 issue of "Guns and Ammo", article entitled "My Holy Grail S&W" by J. Guthrie (page 96).

The author tells us about how he fell in love with his father's S&W model 58 as a kid, and searched for one of his own for decades. He states that recently, his father called him from a gun show and asked if he had "$900 or so lying around", telling him that he had found a model 58 and asking if should he buy it. Mr. Guthrie told him to "Buy it now. I'll send you a bad check, buy it NOW" He concludes by saying "I may not die happy, but I'll die with a Model 58".

Here’s the question. Is the transaction described in this article not in fact a straw purchase? As far as I can tell, no matter how you slice it, if the author’s father purchases this firearm with the intention of accepting reimbursement from his son, he has lied on the Form 4473 since he is not "the actual purchaser".

I understand that is unlikely that a prosecutor would pursue a case like this, and I too disagree with the law, but am I missing something here? Did G&A print an article wherein the author admits to a felony? Don't they have lawyers on staff who read the articles before they are printed?

 

[Centurian22]

There is nothing to say one way or another that his dad did or did not go through the 'proper' transfer channels. Also (as far as I know) guns may be purchased with the intent to gift them to a family member. Think about it over a long enough time period all of our collections will be passed to others. All that being said I do still see your point. I just don't see/agree with there being a clear indication of intent / committing of a crime.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Maybe Dad bought it from an individual.

 

[ETSU_Gal]

Centurian22, I don't think it matters how his father transfered it to him. If his father lied on the form, and he agreed to fund that illegal transaction, then a crime has been committed before he ever even receives the gun.

Now, ColtPythonElite has an interesting point about the private seller, though I got the impression from the article that is was a sale from an FFL.

 

[sniper69]

Maybe it would be best to read what a straw purchase is considered. According to http://www.dontlie.org/straw_purchasing.cfm it shows:

"Buying a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction is a "straw purchase.""

 

[guyfromohio]

I've never filled out a 4473 at a gun show. The FFL gun prices are never THAT good.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I'm more concerned with the "I'll send you a bad check" statement than the purchase. Honestly though, considering the source, I have to wonder about the truthfulness behind the anecdote.

 

[pjeski]

Maybe it would be best to read what a straw purchase is considered. According to http://www.dontlie.org/straw_purchasing.cfm it shows:

"Buying a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction is a "straw purchase.""

That is not a very good explanation of what a straw purchase is. It leaves a lot out. The sticky in this forum is a better discussion on the subject.

 

[sniper69]

I'm more concerned with the "I'll send you a bad check" statement than the purchase. Honestly though, considering the source, I have to wonder about the truthfulness behind the anecdote.

I figure he was cracking a joke with his dad. Maybe they joke like that a lot.
It is kind of like around my house when asked about dessert - for example, "How is the chocolate pie?" "Oh, it's terrible, you don't want to eat any, I better eat it all instead." The pie really isn't terrible, but it is a way to joke with the person asking the question.

 

[kanook]

Dad; I found a 58 for you son, it's $900

Son; Buy it for me and I'll send the money

Next conversation

Dad; Will you take $900

Seller; Sure, just fill out form

Dad; Great, no need for the form, here is a copy of the FFL I need it sent to for my son. I just need a receipt

 

[Sam1911]

Maybe it would be best to read what a straw purchase is considered. According to http://www.dontlie.org/straw_purchasing.cfm it shows:

"Buying a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction is a "straw purchase.""

That is a misleading definition. Buying a gun on behalf of ANYONE else, and putting your name down on the 4473 form as the "purchaser" is breaking the law. The intended final owner doesn't have to be a prohibited person.

This doesn't apply to private sales, though. If his dad found one being sold by a non-licensee (a "private sale") then this would not be a straw purchase. Dad would still have to transfer it to son via a dealer in the son's state of residence, though, but that's a separate issue.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"Buying a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction is a "straw purchase.""

That was the intent of Congress and it stood up before one federal circuit court of appeals at least. (Asking self: what did it cost to litigate all the way to a federal circuit court of appeals?)

The way the law is written and the regulations were formulated by ATF, it is broken down into parts.

Prohibited persons cannot buy guns from FFLs and purchasing a gun for a prohibited person is a straw purchase crime.

BUT the way Congress wrote the law and the legal interpretation of the law is this: the purchaser of the gun listed on the 4473 must be the actual buyer using their own funds (including gift card) to buy the gun for their bona fide use.

One bona fide (good faith) use recognized by the law is to give the gun to a non-prohibited person as a gift (birthday, holy day, gee you're a swell guy or gal occassion, honey you live/work in a bad place you need this, etc).

But buying a gun for a non-prohibited person using funds not your own with your name as buyer of record on the 4473 is just as much a "straw purchase" as buying a gun for a prohibited person in the eyes of the law.

ATF and USAO priorities are (a) purchasers of multiple guns for resale--dealing w/o a license espeically near a state line and (b) buying a gun for a prohibited person. The scenario in the opening post (dad calls from a gun show and asks if you got money because he found your dream gun and you front the money and end up with the gun) is stomping on thin ice IF it involves a 4473.

 

[Sam1911]

Carl, that's two separate issues.

The first is providing a firearm to a prohibited person. That's illegal, but not in itself a straw purchase.

The second is putting your name down on the form 4473 as the "purchaser" when you are acting in someone else's stead. THAT one is the straw purchase.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Current law regarding what constitutes a straw purchase was discussed in depth here.

The Supreme Court is considering the matter now in the case of Abramski v. United States. In that case, Mr. Abramski did essentially what the father did in the case described by the OP and was convicted of making a straw purchase. The Abramski case was discussed here and here.

This ground has been well covered, and there's no reason to go over things again.