What -- exactly -- is a straw purchase?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richard.Howe

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
887
Reason I ask, is that I am considering buying my Dad a gun for Christmas (and I need to start saving now!).

He lives in Alabama, I live in Louisiana. I recall the yellow form generally asks whether I am buying this gun for myself or someone else.

My intent would be to buy it for someone else. Is this a straw purchase? If so, how would I give a firearm as a gift to a family member, assuming they could legally purchase and own a firearm?

Should I say anything to the seller?

Is there any additional documentation I should complete upon giving Dad the gun?

Thanks everyone,
Rich
 
If you look at the instructions for that question (question 1), you will see that you are the actual purchaser when you are purchasing a firearm for use a a legitimate gift.

On the other hand, you cannot legally buy the shotgun in Louisiana and give the firearm to your dad in Alabama since you are not residents of the same state, although I don't think these types of transfers are a very high priority for the BATF.

What you can legally do is buy the shotgun in Alabama and then give it to your dad. Edited to add: (After looking at this statement, I'm not so sure it is correct since the residency issue is still there.)

Yes, I know it doesn't make sense. You can't use logic and common sense when reading Federal regulations. It only gets you in trouble.
 
Last edited:
As far the the definition goes, a Straw Purchase is buying a gun or someone who could not legally obtain it.

So, although you cannot legally buy the gun in LA and give it to him in AL, that would not be considered a straw purchase. It would be an illegal transfer.
 
So if I get a small pistol for my wife to learn to shoot and get her ccw permit, it is not a straw purchase?

The guy at the gun shop I was looking at a Glock 30 for her said he wouldnt sell me a gun for a gift. Huh? I thought a gift was legal. Besides, if I made her go get her permit to purchase, it'd take all the suprise out of the gift wouldn't it?

On a related note, how do transfers of long guns work when both parties want to trade gun for gun?
 
As far the the definition goes, a Straw Purchase is buying a gun or someone who could not legally obtain it.

Thats not entirely true ... buying a gun where you are not the actual buyer is a Staw Purchase ... in other words if I give you the money and tell you to go buy a gun for me, that would be a straw purchase even though I am legally able to purchase a gun on my own. However buying a firearm as a gift is not a straw purchase becuase you are purchasing the gun and then giving it to someone so you are the actual purchaser.

This little cartoon from the ATF explains it pretty well

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ffrrg/theater/toon4.html
 
Here's a real-life example.

If my cousin from Alabama comes to visit me in ID, and he runs across a cool Szabala 12ga. SXS that he wants, he can't buy it. He's from another state.

I can buy it. If he pays me back for it, then its a straw-man purchase and I have committed a felony. If I give it to him, no problem.

See how that works?
 
Does anybody know what, and if, the Statute of Limitations is on these types of firearms felony violations?
 
Actually, Dave R, if said Szabala 12ga. SXS is at a dealer in ID, your cousin could legally buy it, so long as the state laws of both states are followed The contiguous states rule was eliminated from federal statute years ago.

He couldn't legally purchase it from a non-FFL, however.
 
Actually, Dave R, if said Szabala 12ga. SXS is at a dealer in ID, your cousin could legally buy it, so long as the state laws of both states are followed The contiguous states rule was eliminated from federal statute years ago.

The Federal contiguous state rule may have been dropped from Federal law, but a lot of states still have their own statutes on their books that only allow sales to residents of adjacent states.
 
I stand corrected. I thought, although illegal, it was not still called a "Straw Purchase" in those other cases.

What a great cartoon on the ATF site!
 
Hmmmm...the one thing that's for sure is that the rules are so murky on this issue, that I'm probably not going to be prosecuted for giving Dad an 870 for Christmas.

The BATF website has some rather confusing information regarding this. Certainly if they wanted to be more clear -- clear enough to create an enforceable rule -- then they would have been.
 
Just to muddy the waters even more, a recent Michigan Supreme Court decision ruled in favor of a dealer in such a case.

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A gun dealer should not face a misdemeanor charge for selling a firearm to an undercover law enforcement officer who indicated it was for an underage person who didn't have a license, the Michigan Supreme Court said in a decision released Wednesday.

The court ruled that longtime Detroit gun dealer General Laney didn't violate federal or state statutes that allow licensed 18-year-olds to buy or receive a pistol from a private party, but prohibits them from purchasing a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer.

In April 1999, two Wayne County sheriff's deputies — Walter Epps and Roshunda Coming — posed as customers interested in buying a gun for unlicensed 18-year-old civilian Antonio Little, who was working with them. It was intended to be a "straw buy," in which an individual who is legally able to purchase a weapon fills out paperwork on behalf of the individual who can't own one.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the dealer told the undercover deputies that he couldn't sell a gun to an 18-year-old without a license. The dealer also refused to accept payment for a firearm from Little, insisting that it come from one of the undercover deputies although they had indicated it was for Little.

The Supreme Court said there is no dispute that Epps bought the gun because he had a gun license, selected it and handed Laney the money to pay for it.

"Because (the dealer) complied with the plain and unambiguous language of the stature, he committed no crime," the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court ruling reverses a decision handed down by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled that decision should be left to a jury.
 
I am confused now. I thought a straw purchase was to purchase a firearm for someone that could not legally own it, not to legally obtain it. I am 18, and in Michigan, I can own a handgun. I recieved one asw a gradution gift, which I was assured was NOT a straw purchase, as it was a gift, and there were no legal reasons that I cannot own a handgun.

EDIT: BTW, I have the pistol permit issued by the Sheriffs office saying they trust me to own a handgun. If the people most likely to come in contact with me when I have a handgun trust me to own one, why cant politicians in DC?
 
So if I give my father an unbirthday present of $7,000, and he gives me an unbirthday present of a Barret M82A1, which are "completely unrelated" in "any way," then is it a straw purchase? Note, I do not mean "you paid for it, so it is a straw purchase," I mean, if the feds hear about a purchase using that reasoning, will they shove a nightstick up my *ahem* and ship me off to Club Fed?
 
MagKnight, yes it is. Sorry. Unless you think you can convince the Feds and a jury that those two things are unrelated, of course, but they're certainly not going to wink at it.
 
MagKnightX, I'm not suggnesting anyone do anything illegal here. But it has acured to me that if your dad brought said rifle, shot it at the range a few times, and then gives, sells, or trades it to you a month later because he didn't like it... That wouldn't be a straw purachase.

-Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top