Most Gun Sellers Would Sell Firearms Illegally, UCLA Study Says

[2dogs]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a15V7biqPH8g&refer=us

Most Gun Sellers Would Sell Firearms Illegally, UCLA Study Says

June 17 (Bloomberg) -- More than half of U.S. gun sellers would sell firearms illegally to buyers who said they wanted to obtain a gun for someone else, a UCLA study found.

Researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles called six handgun dealers from each of the largest U.S. cities. The researchers posed as gun buyers and gave different scenarios for purchasing a gun, including that the buy was intended as a gift for a boyfriend or girlfriend.

In most cases, licensed gun dealers are prohibited by federal law from ``straw'' purchases, selling to someone whom the dealer knows is not the intended possessor.

``Dealers are in a position to exercise judgment when a customer is explicit about buying a firearm for someone else,'' the study said. ``Some appeared willing to ignore or sidestep relevant information even when told that the end user was prohibited from purchasing a firearm,'' the study said.

Representatives from the Newtown, Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation couldn't immediately be reached for comment, though the group's Web site discourages ``straw'' purchases.

``Our goal in reaching out to the consumer is to let them know they are committing a serious crime by attempting to purchase a firearm for someone who cannot legally possess one,'' trade group president Doug Painter said on the Web site.

 

[JohnBT]

"In most cases, licensed gun dealers are prohibited by federal law from ``straw'' purchases, selling to someone whom the dealer knows is not the intended possessor."

Pure unmitigated nonsense.

It is only a straw purchase if the buyer is getting the gun for someone who is ineligible to have it. In other words, buying guns as gifts is legal. I've done it. And I've received guns as gifts.

John

 

[cuchulainn]

The actualy study is here: http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/2/147

 

[No4Mk1*]

Wow! UCLA has proven that people that sell guns are willing to sell guns! They should get more of my tax money so that they can continue to be a valuable source of information and cutting edge research.

 

[TheEgg]

From the abstract of the "study".

one of three purchase conditions—when the consumer said that the handgun was for him/herself, a gift for a girl/boyfriend, or for a girl/boyfriend "because s/he needs it".

Since as far as I know, none of these conditions necessarily constitutes a "straw" sale, what is the big deal?

Oh yeah, I forgot -- UCLA.

Edited to add the "necessarily" -- I read the description of purchase conditions to be a 'gift', but if the 3rd party paid for it, or they were ineligible, it probably would be an illegal straw purchase.

 

[2dogs]

The link to the actual study shows their definition of "straw purchase" as:

"A straw purchase is defined as when a person who is authorized to purchase a firearm buys one for someone who is not so authorized5 (for example, a felon6) or when the purchaser conceals "the identity of the true intended receiver of the firearm(s)" (Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms"

("5.Gun Control Act of 1968. 18 USC 922 (b)(2). ")


("7. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Following the gun: enforcing federal laws against firearms traffickers. Washington, DC: Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 2000. ")




18 U.S.C.922 (b) (2) states:

"A federally licensed firearms dealer may not sell a firearm to any person who would be prohibited by State or local law from purchasing that firearm." 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2).

Looks like they combined 922(b) (2) with whatever that other reference is to make a "straw purchase" mean what they want it to mean?

 

[cuchulainn]

Note that no purchases were made. The study did not say how they verified that they were speaking to someone who could give an accurate assessment of what the shop actually would do when it came down to the actual purchase.

Since as far as I know, none of these conditions constitutes a "straw" sale, what is the big deal?

Number three is potentially an illegal straw purchase.

Basically:
Buy as a gift = legal
Buy at the direction of another and note yourself as the "buyer" on the 4473 = illegal.

The flaw is the assumption that all "need" requests are the illegal type -- It is possible for someone to buy a gift for somenone who "needs" a gun. "Need" does not equal "She asked me to do it."

See: http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/geninfo.htm

<snip>
15. "STRAW PURCHASES"

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use "straw purchasers" (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.

This article does not purport to cover sales to persons who purchase firearms with the intent of making gifts of such firearms to other persons. In instances such as this, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. 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.

<snip>

 

[GSB]

Okay, I read that and I'm still confused. Let's say someone's wife says she would like a new pistol for Christmas. Does the gift then cease to become a gift and become a "purchase at the direction of another" and therefore an illegal straw purchace?

 

[D.W. Drang]

Let's say someone's wife says she would like a new pistol for Christmas. Does the gift then cease to become a gift and become a "purchase at the direction of another" and therefore an illegal straw purchace?

It would only be a straw purchase if she couldn't legally possess a firearm otherwise. Surprise, surprise, UCLA's definition of a "Straw Purchase" is wrong. (Well, inaccurate, anyway.)
You CAN buy someone a firearm as a gift, as Sarah Brady knows...
Just because that "someone" can't BUY a gun does not mean that "someone" cannot OWN a gun; otherwise, all those Dads buying their kids .22s should be going to jail.

 

[cuchulainn]

Let's say someone's wife says she would like a new pistol for Christmas. Does the gift then cease to become a gift and become a "purchase at the direction of another" and therefore an illegal straw purchace?

No. As I understand it (YMMV), unless she gave him the money to do it, it's a gift (though a requested gift). As long as he used his money, it's a gift. A straw buyer is a middleman between the actual buyer's money and the purchase.

Obviously, "giving money" doesn't really work with most married couples whose money typically is jointly held anyway. But the study used boy/girlfriends -- if the end recipient gave the middleman the money for the purchase, it's a straw purchase. If not, it's a gift.

 

[cuchulainn]

It would only be a straw purchase if she couldn't legally possess a firearm

It could be an illegal straw purchase even if she could legally possess a firearm -- if she directed him to do it and gave him the money. As soon as you use someone else's money to buy a gun for her, you become a straw purchaser regardless of her legal ability to possess.

 

[pax]

June 17 (Bloomberg) -- More than half of U.S. gun sellers would sell firearms illegally to buyers who said they wanted to obtain a gun for someone else, a UCLA study found.

Researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles called six handgun dealers from each of the largest U.S. cities. The researchers posed as gun buyers and gave different scenarios for purchasing a gun, including that the buy was intended as a gift for a boyfriend or girlfriend.

They called SIX dealers, and from there extrapolated that "more than half" of all US gun sellers would ...

. . . . . . . . . . . . :banghead:

The statistical universe seems a bit lacking, somehow.

pax

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable. -- Mark Twain

 

[D.W. Drang]

So since they were saying "I want to buy a gun for my girlfriend..." they were NOT describing a straw purchase!

Hmmm, I note that Blomberg has a "Feedback" page...
http://quote.bloomberg.com/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi

Summary: Questionable methodolgy

LOG: 6/18/03 13:17:41 Your Initial Feedback
URL : http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news,pid=10000103,sid=a15V7biqPH8g,refer=u s
So, they call SIX gun dealers and extrapolate from there what ALL of them would do.. And, by the way, since "A straw purchase is defined as when a person who is authorized to purchase a firearm buys one for someone who is not so authorized5 ,for example, a felon6, or when the purchaser conceals "the identity of the true intended receiver of the firearm,s," ,Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms","5.Gun Control Act of 1968. 18 USC 922 ,b,,2,. ",,as cited in the study itself, when they ask the gun dealer if they can "buy a gun for my girlfriend" they are NOT describing a straw purchase. If they had carried through with the experiment and filled out the Form 4473 with their own name instead fo the recipient's name, THEN it could have been interpreted as a straw purchase. But GIFTS are allowed, as Sarah Brady knows.

 

[BerettaNut92]

At UCI, we had not one, but two lower-division classes dedicated to research methodology and ETHICS.

What the hell happens at higher levels?

 

[Al Norris]

I would think that if we are to intelligently discuss this, we should be discussing the original research itself and not what some idiotic newspaper "reports" it says.

from the Abstract:

Objective: To examine firearm dealer willingness to sell when a handgun is being purchased for another person. US law requires a background check of the purchaser but not the end user of a firearm.

Subjects and methods: A total of 120 handgun dealers (six from each of the 20 largest US cities with 10 or more dealers) participated in telephone interviews. Dealers within each city were randomly assigned to a male or female interviewer and then randomly assigned to one of three purchase conditions—when the consumer said that the handgun was for him/herself, a gift for a girl/boyfriend, or for a girl/boyfriend "because s/he needs it".

Results: Most dealers were willing to sell a handgun regardless of the end user (self: 87.5%; gift: 70.8%; "need": 52.5%). Multivariate analyses indicate that dealers in the Midwest, South, and West were more willing to sell than those in the Northeast (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 21.30, 18.74, and 8.93, respectively) and that willingness to sell is lower when the sale would be illegal, that is, under the "need" condition (AOR = 0.20).

Conclusions and implications: Dealers are in a position to exercise judgment when a customer is explicit about buying a firearm for someone else. Some appeared willing to ignore or sidestep relevant information even when told that the end user was prohibited from purchasing a firearm him/herself. In the absence of federal handgun registration, which would track ownership changes, resources with which to conduct compliance checks (for example, as are conducted to identify retailers who sell tobacco or alcohol to under-age persons) seem warranted.

It appears, on the surface at least, that the bloomberg article took almost all its data from the Abstract and not the study itself. Surprised?

Then there is this, from the Discussion section of the study, about which the Bloomberg report does not even mention:

Several matters warrant comment when interpreting the findings. First, dealers’ stated intent may not correspond to their actual behavior. Although not necessarily a usual business practice, some dealers may say that they would sell a handgun while on the telephone but not do so if the potential customer was on-site. Alternatively, some dealers might resist persuasion attempts on the telephone but might yield to in-person pressure. Second, employees likely vary in their knowledge of and compliance with firearms laws such that if an interviewer had spoken with a different clerk at the same retailer, s/he might have received a different answer. Although personnel training may vary across and within stores, one "bad" clerk can implicate the entire dealership. Third, the effect of price on willingness to sell is not clear. If asked how much they were willing to spend, interviewers stated "about $300". Handguns are available for less and for substantially more. Perhaps dealer behavior would differ depending upon the amount of money a customer was willing to spend. Fourth, the effect of dealer location (that is, rural or urban) is unknown because the sample included only urban dealers. Fifth, the effect of state level regulation of firearm dealers is not examined in this study. Sixth, we did not attempt to ascertain whether the participating dealers held FFLs. One could assume that, if listed in a telephone directory, the dealer is "regularly involved in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail" and should have an FFL.2 It was not possible, however, to ascertain this information without arousing undue suspicion. And, finally, although only two or three dealers seemed to be suspicious of the interviewers, skeptics may wonder whether the dealers were simply "playing along" with the caller.

As has already been said, the study used an incomplete model of straw purchase (and even admits to it) to make the conclusion more in line with the perceived results.

Such studies are often funded, even though the premise is false to begin with. I think we all know why this is allowed!

 

[Standing Wolf]

A straw purchase is defined as when a person who...

A what isn't a when. Never has been. Never will be.

 

[2dogs]

".......we made 20 additional calls after the study was complete. A dealer was randomly chosen from each city and randomly assigned to each interviewer. The interviewer opened with "My girl/boyfriend needs me to buy her/him a handgun because s/he isn’t allowed to". That is, the caller was explicit about wanting to buy a gun for a prohibited purchaser. In 16 of the 20 calls, the dealer responded with an unequivocal "no" and commented about such a purchase being clearly illegal, a straw purchase, etc. Each of the four who agreed to sell a handgun appeared to recognize that the sale would be illegal. They said: (1) "As long as you have no record, you can come down here and pick one up and put it in your name"; (2) "You can do whatever you want after you walk out the door"; (3) "What you do with it is your business. Legally you’d be responsible for it, you’re more than welcome to buy one. You can’t transfer it to him—I assume he’s been turned down"; and (4) "She can’t come in, pick one out and you buy it. That’s against the law". Interviewer: "I’d come, just me". Clerk: "I’d have no problem with that". These comments suggest that, even when expressly prohibited by law, dealer judgment enters into their sales. "


Technically, were these dealers wrong? e.g #3 above- may not be the most meticulous regarding the law, but he is correct, isn't he?

Anyway, read the study (cuchulainn's link) for more entertaining gems.

 

[GSB]

As soon as you use someone else's money to buy a gun for her, you become a straw purchaser regardless of her legal ability to possess.

Ah, that clears it up. Thanks.