OK. I'll do your research for you. From the case I cited:
"E. Count 6--False Statement to a Licensee in the Acquisition of a Firearm, Aiding andAbetting
Count 6 of the indictment charged Polk with aiding and abetting the purchase of a firearm through a false and fictitious statement. In particular, the Government alleged that Polk purchased weapons from Liberty Sports through Davidson, a "straw purchaser." Such purchases, argues the Government, violate 18 U.S.C. 167; 922(a)(6) because they involve the buyer making a false statement about the true purchaser of the weapon(s)."
And the courts response to the charge:
"We find that the Government's construction of 167; 922(a)(6) sweeps too broadly so that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction on Count 6.(7) Although 167; 922(a)(6) on its face does not prohibit "straw purchases," we have nonetheless held that such transactions violate 167; 922(a)(6). See, e.g., United States v. Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d 973, 979 (5th Cir. 1985). It is clear to us--indeed, the plain language of the statute compels the conclusion--that 167; 922(a)(6) criminalizes false statements that are intended to deceive federal firearms dealers with respect to facts material to the "lawfulness of the sale" of firearms. (Emphasis added.) Thus, if the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, 167; 922(a)(6) liability (under a "straw purchase" theory) does not attach. See, e.g., Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212, 220, 96 S.Ct. 498, 503, 46 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976) (holding that purpose of 167; 922(a)( 6) was "'to make it possible to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency'" (quoting S.Rep. No. 1501, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 22 (1968) U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1968 p. 4410)); United States v. Moore, 109 F.3d 1456, 1460-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, ---- U.S.L.W. ---- (U.S. June 2, 1997) (No. 96-9227); United States v. White, 451 F.2d 696, 699 (5th Cir. 1971) ("One goal sought by Congress [ through 167; 922(a)(6)] was control over the ease with which criminals may acquire firearms."), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 998, 92 S.Ct. 1268, 31 L.Ed.2d 468 (1972).(8)
Sorry, but the 5th Circuit of Appeals trumps any ATF newsletter.
Scott