Doc7
Member
never mind Frank Ettin's post cleared it up for me.
Gifts are unambiguously allowed and it says so right on the instructions on the back of the Form 4473.This could be a slippery ruling on "gifts" also.
I recently purchased a gun as a Christmas gift for my wife who is legally allowed to own firearms. I had no intention of keeping for myself. My wife selected the gun for herself, I put it on layaway and made the payments. When my wife and I left the store the clerk handed me the gun which I carried to our vehicle. We both knew the entire time was gun was going to be hers.
So this really seems to more about where the money came from. A gun purchased with my money is legal as a gift even though I have no intention of keeping it. Maybe the Court will consider giving firearms to your spouse legal based on marriage laws and children as part of the family unit. But what about children that no longer live at home?
In the case being heard the only difference is where the money for the purchase came from.
Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.
Not really. The source of the money is evidence of intent. The result flows from the law of agency -- one person acting on behalf of another.BSA1 said:...In the case being heard the only difference is where the money for the purchase came from.
In the case being heard the only difference is where the money for the purchase came from.
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.
Actually I believe you can make a very strong 5th amendment argument.You're way off base. You have no Fifth Amendment right here. Do you even know what the Fifth Amendment says? The clause at issue reads:
Filling out a 4473 involves no compulsion. You don't have to buy a gun. You can avoid filling out a 4473 just by going without a gun, and you cannot go to jail for not having a gun. But if you choose to have a gun and fill out a 4473 to buy it lawfully from a dealer, you can then be held criminally responsible if you lie and violate 18 USC 922(a)(6).
Good for you. Go ahead and try. But do it properly and cite case law and proper legal authority.Queen_of_Thunder said:Actually I believe you can make a very strong 5th amendment argument.
Actually I believe you can make a very strong 5th amendment argument.
As do black plastic parts on rifles making them "assault weapons" and magazines over any given round capacity (7 rounds in New York) making them "high capacity".NavyLCDR:
When you summarized that neither federal nor state laws prohibit a personal FTF sale within a given state,
doing FTF deals at gun shows-even though it is just as legal in most states- seems to have attracted a very disproportionate amount of attention after some recent tragedies.
NavyLCDR:
When you summarized that neither federal nor state laws prohibit a personal FTF sale within a given state,
doing FTF deals at gun shows-even though it is just as legal in most states- seems to have attracted a very disproportionate amount of attention after some recent tragedies.
This is actually about as clean a case as we could hope for. A law enforcement official, clearly not trying to transfer to a restricted person, in fact using an FFL to do the transfer, who in my eyes anyways isn't guilty of transgressing congressional law on purchasing but rather contravening BATFE policy and lying on a form.
The prosecution didn't take it to the Supreme Court, the defendant did. The prosecution was probably betting on the defendent rolling over belly up, paying a fine and moving on. I mean after all, who would dare take on the ATF and Federal government?What puzzles me is why the fed govt chose to push this case in the first place.
It seems to me that by taking this all the way to SCOTUS, the prosecution has everything to lose and almost nothing to gain.
I mean, what's the best possible outcome in the eyes of the prosecution?
That the law gets upheld, that a "crime" that harmed no one is held indeed to be a crime, and that and an otherwise lawful, upstanding citizen goes "up the river"?
Seems like that would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.
OK. I'll give this a whirl. Maybe you can set up a poll and let the members of THR decide if your argument or mine comes out on top.Good for you. Go ahead and try. But do it properly and cite case law and proper legal authority.
A poll would be completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the members here might think of our respective arguments. What matters would be which a court would be likely to accept.Queen_of_Thunder said:OK. I'll give this a whirl. Maybe you can set up a poll and let the members of THR decide if your argument or mine comes out on top.Good for you. Go ahead and try. But do it properly and cite case law and proper legal authority.
A poll would be completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the members here might think of our respective arguments. What matters would be which a court would be likely to accept.
OK. I'll give this a whirl. Maybe you can set up a poll and let the members of THR decide if your argument or mine comes out on top.
A former state police officer, Abramski got caught up — mistakenly – in a federal investigation of a bank robbery in Rocky Mount in 2009, apparently because he was said to look like the bank robber, although the robber was masked. Abramski was ultimately cleared of any role in the bank robbery and of any federal charges related to the robbery.
However, during the federal investigation of Abramski, FBI agents searched his former residence in Rocky Mount. That search turned up a receipt that his uncle, Angel Alvarez, had written to him for buying a Glock 19 handgun.
Apparently you have never watched hearings before Congressional Committees. And since you chose to even deny me a chance to put my argument before you and others for consideration I'll just pass. If you remember I said I could make a good case for a 5th Amendment case but you won't even consider allowing me to present it. Of course I can make a good argument but dealing with Closed minds get us nowhere.What does the opinions of internet forum members have to do with how the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution is worded? It plainly states IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE. On what planet does that apply to filling out a form to purchase a firearm?