Problem with Buds Guns

[castile]

I had an issue with Buds guns. They told me that it would be taken care of bla bla bla. But nothing was done before the rifle was to hit the FFL dealer and I finally got hold of a supervisor who used the fact I used my wife's Buds guns account to have the gun shipped to my FFL dealer to shut down our account and have the rifle shipped back to the shipper or rerouted. He acted like it was a straw purchase. The gun was for me and I ordered it, it was that I used her account to get it sent to the FFL. I was going to be the one who went into the dealer and did the back ground check and pay for it and it was for me so what is the big deal? Off to Grabagun for me. Anyone else have any trouble with buds? In the past I had one issue with them in that they said my AK came with a bayonet and some other goodies but would not help me when it arrived with missing accessories and broken Bayonet.

 

[VoodooMountain]

How can it be a straw purchase. She's immediate family. Isn't there a clause for gifting in this scenario? Plus, if you fill out the paperwork it explicitly asks who the purchased is. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[ljnowell]

In today's world they probably don't care. Ordered under one name and papered under another was probably something they didn't want to chance it on. Today's political climate is too risky.

 

[chiefpa]

The ATF is just looking for any reason to shut down gun dealers. Even the hint of wrong doing is enough for them to prosecute and shut you down. Not worth the risk with today's anti-gun President and government bureaucrats.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'm not sure I understand here...so please feel free to provide clarification if I'm wandering away from the facts.


You say you used your wife's account to buy a gun for yourself.

Let's leave aside the whole FFL transfer thing on your end, where you pick the gun up. Was there any way for Bud's (the agency selling the gun) to know that the person buying the gun was NOT her?

If not, then the gun that they were selling was NOT going to the person they believed it to be going. How, then, is this NOT as straw purchase in the eyes of the law?


The way the law is written, Uncle Same does not care that you are legally able to buy a gun when it comes to a straw purchase. It cares that the person buying the gun is the actual recipient of the gun.

Most people focus on Form 4473, which is where it's documented as to who the gun is going to and where lying on that form would be the violation that straw purchases makes. However, if Bud's believed they were selling the gun to your wife and the gun instead went to you...I can see where there may be a problem.


Let's change this a little bit:

You go into a store, your wife wants a gun. She picks out a gun, you pay for it, she fills out the 4473 in her name and the two of you walk out happy clams. She got the gun she wanted, right? She filled out the paperwork in her name and the gun is legally hers, right?

But the reality is that the way in which this sale took place makes it a straw purchase. YOU purchased the gun because YOU paid for it and SHE took possession of it.

It seems to me that it's pretty clear that the purpose of the law is to ensure that the person taking possession of the firearm is the legal owner. However, the way it's written doesn't work out that with respect to straw purchases...like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way it is.


So, I don't see where your particular situation is legally any different than the example I provided. Bud's believed your wife to be the recipient because you went through her account. The fact that you are her husband and are legally able to own a gun makes no difference.

 

[castile]

I don't believe your correct. You would be correct if she bought the gun gave it to me to circumvent the law. It would not be any different if I used her credit card to pay for the gun or put it on her account, the only time the straw purchase comes into affect is if someone buys a gun to give to another person because they can not buy it for them-self. It does not matter how ordered the gun it matters who the gun is for and how fills out the paper work. I would have filled out the paper work and I would have been the owner of the gun. I am sure ATF does not give a rip whos account the gun was ordered under. Buds would not have sold the gun to my wife but to the FFL dealer we picked to do the transfer. That is Buds responsibility and where it ends. The transfer from the FFL to me who the gun will belong is the responsibility of me to be truthful. I would have been the one who bought the gun, did the BGC and owned the gun so where is the straw purchase? One does not exist. Your analogy of who buys the gun is false. No where does ATF give a rip who buys or pays for a gun. If Grandma gives you money to buy the gun or you use your spouses credit card does not matter one rip. Its who fills out the paper work and takes ownership and who its actually for.

 

[v35]

The gun was for me and I ordered it, it was that I used her account to get it sent to the FFL.

I fail to see how this is a problem. Simply purchase the gun using your own account in your own name. That's what they expect you to do.

Quoting from Bud's:

In making a purchase from BudsGunShop.com, YOU declare and warrant that: ... YOU are the actual transferee/buyer of the fiream(s) you are purchasing from BudsGunShop.com. (WARNING: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person).

That's their policy. You clearly ran afoul of it. Don't like it? Find another dealer.

 

[castile]

This straw BS is clearly a non issue in this case. Buds does not sell the gun to the buyer, they sell the gun to the FFL dealer. The dealer then transfers the gun to the buyer. You check the box are you the actual buyer when you do the BGC. Not at Buds or any on line seller. Your making an issue where non exists.

 

[rbernie]

You would be correct if she bought the gun gave it to me to circumvent the law. It would not be any different if I used her credit card to pay for the gun or put it on her account, the only time the straw purchase comes into affect is if someone buys a gun to give to another person because they can not buy it for them-self.

Actually, the law does use who pays for the gun to determine who is the 'buyer' regardless of intent or other mitigating circumstance. That's just the way that it is, even if that's not the way that you want it.

You would have been OK if she paid (her account) and she did the paperwork at the local dealer and then simply gifted it to you.

Buds does not sell the gun to the buyer, they sell the gun to the FFL dealer.

That is not correct at all. Buds sells the gun to the account holder and the local dealer is just a transfer agent. It's no different than buying a gun off Gunbroker.

 

[MIL-DOT]

This straw BS is clearly a non issue in this case. Buds does not sell the gun to the buyer, they sell the gun to the FFL dealer. The dealer then transfers the gun to the buyer. You check the box are you the actual buyer when you do the BGC. Not at Buds or any on line seller. Your making an issue where non exists.

Wrong, Buds is not 'selling' the gun to the FFL, they are TRANSFERING possesion of it to the FFL, whose responsibility is then to see that it is legally transfered to the legal buyer. The SALE of the gun occured when you gave them your CC info, and they ran the numbers and had the funds transfered to their account. The gunstore is merely an intermediary fascilitating the transfer, never for an instant an owner of the gun.

 

[v35]

Your (sic) making an issue where non exists.

No sir, that is what you are doing. The issue has nothing to do with your FFL or even federal law. It's their store and their policy. You can accede to it, or not.

I could argue that I have every legal right to OC in a Whole Foods Market or in the back of an Uber car. Doesn't matter. They don't want my business. That's fine. I'm happy to give my money to those who do.

 

[Jlr2267]

If not, then the gun that they were selling was NOT going to the person they believed it to be going. How, then, is this NOT as straw purchase in the eyes of the law?

A straw purchase is when a person *falsely* indicates that he/she is the actual transferee. In fact, the purchase itself is not a crime, lying on the 4473 is the crime. In this case, the OP was, in fact, the actual transferee. Who the seller thinks the gun is going to is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

The way the law is written, Uncle Same does not care that you are legally able to buy a gun when it comes to a straw purchase. It cares that the person buying the gun is the actual recipient of the gun.

I agree with the 1st statement. I disagree with the 2nd (I think). If by "the person buying the gun" you mean the person paying, I disagree. Whose money is used does not matter, as long as the person filling out 4473 *is the actual transferee.* If by "the person buying the gun" you mean the actual transferee, I agree.

If Buds shipped the gun in his wife's name, it's up to the local FFL to sort it out. I can't see how Buds would assume any liability in this.

 

[castile]

I checked out everything I can find from ATF and there is not sale until the paper work from the FFL dealer is filled out. As far as ATF goes its then that the sale is started. They have not one thing on whos name the account is at dowy cheatam and how gun shop. Its who applies for the transfer and who is getting it. I was going to apply and the gun was for me. Done and done.

 

[guyfromohio]

How does Buds know you're not a 13 year-old illegal alien with active substance abuse and a history of involuntary commission to psychiatric facilities based on your user account? They don't. They shouldn't care. There is no proof of identity until one fills out the forms at the FFL as it should be. I can see them wanting to be conservative, but I see no breach of the law here.

 

[BSA1]

The gun was for me and I ordered it, it was that I used her account to get it sent to the FFL. I was going to be the one who went into the dealer and did the back ground check and pay for it and it was for me so what is the big deal?

You used your wife's account to pay Bud's for the gun before it was shipped to your FFL dealer. As commented all you were going to pay for was the fee to the FFL dealer for doing transfer.

Since your name was not on her account it was not a lawful transaction to being with. It has nothing to do with BATF. It is you making a unauthorized charge on your wife's credit card account.

The seemly simple solution is too have a joint account in both of your names.

 

[castile]

exactly Guy. Does not matter where the money comes from,or whos account its under. What if I had an account that was Felix the cat, its who is buying the gun at the dealer and who its for. If its not for me and I am buying it for another person at that point could be a problem. I bought a Ruger same way, it came in I filled out the paper work did the BGC and it was my gun. I then sold the gun because it did not work out for me. Sold it to someone in my state who had a valid DL. My intent was for the gun to be mine but since I could not get it to group sent it back to Ruger and still could not get it to group for me I sold it. No intent to circumvent the law. Sale starts when FFL Transfer. Show me the form where ATF says you have to give the name of actual buyer on your joes gun shop application. I also just called a couple of gun shops and they all said that its when the FFL does the paper work that the laws on straw buyers comes in. They are transferring to the FFL and the FFL is transferring to the actual buyer.

 

[pintler]

IANAL, but when OnlineVendor.com thinks Jane Smith is buying a gun, and ships it to LocalFFL for Jane to pick it up, it's a little awkward for LocalFFL if John Smith shows up and says it's for him.

My wife, for example, didn't change her name when we got married. How's the local shop supposed to know who is/isn't married?

I'd think this would be true whether it's a gun or not. Let's say I go to some online jewelry store and purchase a Rolex, using my wife's account. Then I show up and want to leave with it. I'd think they'd be pretty careful about that. If they give it to me and my wife walks in tomorrow and wants her watch, what do they say to her?

The law/politics of it being a gun is just another layer of reasons.

(in practice, of course, this rarely matters. Our amazon account is in my wife's name, for example, just because she made our first purchase eons ago. But amazon is just shipping the package to our house; they never have to worry about who might get it once UPS leaves it on the porch. So we get used to the idea of 'communal' online accounts)

 

[castile]

Your analogy would be for someone buying a gun legally but illegal claiming they were the original buyer. This would not be a straw purchase but taking a gun that is not yours. No different than picking up someone else's Diamond ring. If you are saying your someone who is legal to pick up the purchase than its fraud and that is another kind of legal. A straw purchase is to buy a gun for someone who is not allowed to have it. Or to buy a gun for another so they do not have to go through a BGC. I think spouses and children are exempt from this very narrow reading of the straw purchase law. But even so, the person who was buying this gun would have been the actual buyer. So its all a moot point. I would bet its legal to buy a gun for a friend as a gift and have it sent to to an FFL and they have to fill out the paper work. That way they are the actual buyer of the gun even though the funds were gifted. I called one of the big competitors to Buds and was told they really don't care who ordred the gun form them, they transfer to the FFL and its up to the FFL to make sure the buyer is the the actual owner. This is where the question comes in are you the actual owner of the gun being purchased.

 

[stonecutter2]

I don't understand why you used your wife's account for the purchase. Was that a mistake?

I think it was probably in Bud's best interests to back out of the whole thing.

How would this have worked at the FFL for pick up? Would the items have showed up in your wife's name?

Sorry, just best to be as transparent as possible when doing any online purchasing.

Live and learn. Sorry it didn't work out.

 

[castile]

Think of this, guns to cure cancer buys a gun from buds guns and has it sent to the FFL. Does a raffle and you win. You go in fill out the ATF 4477 but guns to cure cancer paid for it. Have they committed a fraud or a straw man buy? No because no one has take possession or applied to own the gun. Look at it this way you buy a gun from buds, you get to the shop or your FFL and open the box and hey wait a min, Buds sent you a 270 instead of a 3006. Do you have to take the gun? No until you fill out the 4477 do the BGC its not your gun. Its still new in the box. Once the paper work is done its a used gun and your gun. Its not sold until the paper work is applied for and the paper work starts with the form 4477, the FFL transfers are nothing more than a track record of where the firearm is at any given point until it goes into JQ Publics hands.

 

[rule303]

As a retailer, it is risky to complete any transaction where the person taking possession of the order is not the person billed. This is the top problem for online retailers, and also usually required to be addressed when you have a merchant account to process credit cards.
Just as a hypothetical situation- Buds ships the gun, you pick it up. Your wife calls the credit card company and files a chargeback saying she didn't buy the gun. Buds calls the transferring FFL only to find out that she really wasn't the buyer. Buds is out the price of the gun, the ATF doesn't care because the 4473 was filled out properly, and local LE isn't going to waste their time over a one time loss of a few hundred bucks.
Nothing to do with straw purchases, just good business sense.

 

[rbernie]

Your analogy would be for someone buying a gun legally but illegal claiming they were the original buyer. This would not be a straw purchase but taking a gun that is not yours. No different than picking up someone else's Diamond ring.

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you assert this.

A straw purchase is to buy a gun for someone who is not allowed to have it. Or to buy a gun for another so they do not have to go through a BGC.

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you assert this.

I think spouses and children are exempt from this very narrow reading of the straw purchase law.

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you assert this.

I called one of the big competitors to Buds and was told they really don't care who ordred the gun form them, they transfer to the FFL and its up to the FFL to make sure the buyer is the the actual owner. This is where the question comes in are you the actual owner of the gun being purchased.

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you assert this.

Let's make this easy: let's say that I buy a gun off an auction on Gunbroker and pay the seller, who then ships the gun to my local dealer with an invoice for the buyer (me). The dealer will transfer the gun to the person on the invoice, and will NOT do so if the name on the invoice isn't the same as the person filling out the 4473. In the case where the store refuses the transfer out of a concern for a straw buy (mismatch between invoice and the person picking up the gun), they will ship the gun back to the seller for the seller to figure out. All that Buds did was save themselves and you the trouble of going through this.

Once again:

Actually, the law does use who pays for the gun to determine who is the 'buyer' regardless of intent or other mitigating circumstance. That's just the way that it is, even if that's not the way that you want it.

 

[castile]

It was how the accounts came up. To be honest I did not even see that it was her account not mine when I did the quick log in from the PCs remember the UN and Password. When it happened with the Ruger the FFL dealer laughed and said you don't look like a Jamie. He then said we don't care whos name is on the paperwork to us as long as you are the actual buyer and the one applying for the 4477. I was and did so no problems.

 

[castile]

No, the CC was in both our names. So she could not dispute it unless I did not nor she order or buy the item.

 

[castile]

Quote:
A straw purchase is to buy a gun for someone who is not allowed to have it. Or to buy a gun for another so they do not have to go through a BGC.
No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you assert this.

Quote:
I think spouses and children are exempt from this very narrow reading of the straw purchase law.
No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you assert this.

Quote:
I called one of the big competitors to Buds and was told they really don't care who ordred the gun form them, they transfer to the FFL and its up to the FFL to make sure the buyer is the the actual owner. This is where the question comes in are you the actual owner of the gun being purchased.
No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you assert this.

I buy a gun off an auction on Gunbroker and pay the seller, who then ships the gun to my local dealer witih an invoice for the buyer (me). The dealer will transfer the gun to the person on the invoice, and will NOT do so if the name on the invoice isn't the same as the person filling out the 4473. In the case where the store refuses the transfer out of a concern for a straw buy, they will ship the gun back to the seller for the seller to figure out.

All that Buds did was save themselves and you the trouble of going through this.

This is a total load of BS. The actual buyer of the gun only starts on the 4477 that is the long and short of it.