Extracted quotes from BATFE
www.atf.gov:
A "straw purchase" is a situation in which a person is using a
"straw purchaser"(another person) to acquire one or more firearms
from a Federally licensed firearms dealer, to hide the identity of
the true purchaser or ultimate possessor of the firearm/s. ... this
is the most common way that prohibited people, such as convicted
felons, and drug traffickers, obtain firearms.
......
(in case discussed) The defendants admitted that Land and another
individual represented in these statements that they were the actual
buyers of the firearms, when in fact they were purchased for Baugh
and Johnson, who are barred as convicted felons from owning or
possessing firearms.
.......
Since 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft has directed U.S. Attorneys
to target individuals who lie in order to obtain a firearm they could
not legally purchase, as well as straw purchasers.
.......
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ffrrg/theater/toon4.html
For years a person buying a gun as a gift for a qualified
family member has been regarded by courts and the ATF as the
actual purchaser of the gun. The "gifting" is a legal private
transfer. As long as the recipient of the gift is qualified
to purchase a firearm and is a family member, courts and ATF
have not treated these gift transfers as "straw purchases."
Summarizing in lay terms the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling in Case No. 96-40836, USA v Charles Ray Polk,
17 July 1997, we have:
Count 6: Aiding and Abetting a False Statement to a Licensee
in the Acquisition of a Firearm
This involved several "straw purchases" by confidential
informant Davidson on behalf of accused Polk. At that time,
Polk had no criminal convictions or other liabilities to
prevent him from buying a gun in person.
The prosecution argued: "that Davidson's purchases were
"straw purchase" transactions because, notwithstanding the
fact that Polk could lawfully purchase firearms, Davidson
falsely informed a federally licensed firearms dealer that
he was the true purchaser of the weapons."
The Fifth Circuit argued: "It is clear to us--indeed, the
plain language of the statute compels the conclusion--that
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. ...
Thus, if the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm
directly, 922(a)(6) liability (under a "straw purchase"
theory) does not attach."
The Fifth Circuit observed that court rulings had held that:
"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' " "
and that: "One goal sought by Congress [through 922(a)(6)]
was control over the ease with which criminals may acquire
firearms."
The Fifth Circuit concluded: "Here, it is undisputed that
Polk could have lawfully purchased firearms from Liberty
Sports, that CI Davidson was in the "business" of buying and
selling firearms, that Davidson did not purchase weapons
solely for Polk, and that Polk's participation in the alleged
crime consisted of nothing more than a request to purchase
firearms. Under these facts, we find that no reasonable jury
could have convicted Polk beyond a reasonable doubt for
aiding and abetting a violation of 922(a)(6).9"
Given that a man (Polk) whose convictions on counts:
(1) Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction;
(2) and (3) Solicitation to Commit Crimes of Violence and
(5) Unlawful Possession of a Machine Gun
were upheld on appeal, had a conviction vacated on
(6) Aiding and Abetting False Statement to a Licensee in the
Acquisition of a Firearm ("straw purchase"),
for the reasons given by the Fifth District Court, it is
difficult to see how that Court would rule differently in
the case of a father buying a gun as a gift for a son who
is legally entitled to lawfully purchase and own firearms,
particularly if the son is already in possession of lawfully
purchased firearms.
Polk was an un-convicted criminal having an un-related party,
confidential informant Davidson, buy guns for him, and the
conviction on "straw purchase" was vacated because at the
time of the purchase, Polk was qualified to purchase in person.
To believe that a son having a father buy a gun as a gift
would be treated more harshly by that court is hard to accept.
Violating the intent of the Law as passed by Congress is
one thing; the rules and regulations promulgated to enforce
that law can get really sticky as time passes. And the rules
and regulations tend to take precedence over the intent of
Congress in passing the law in the first place.
The Fifth Court noted in 1997:
"We note a marked difference in the "straw purchase" warning
on the reverse side of the August 1994 version of ATF Form 4473
and the April 1991 version of that same form. The April 1991
warning states that a "straw purchase" may violate federal
firearms laws if the licensee knows and has reasonable cause to
believe that the true purchaser of the firearm(s) is "ineligible"
to make that purchase directly.
"By contrast, the August 1994 version of Form 4473
significantly broadens the definition of "straw purchase"
transactions: "A `straw purchase' occurs when the actual buyer
uses another person (the straw purchaser) to execute ATF
Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the
actual buyer." See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 84 F.3d 1567,
1571 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting the different interpretations of
illegal "straw purchase" transactions), on rehearing en banc,
109 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).""
NOW, the 2005 version of the 4473 warning on "straw purchase"
adds language that the FUNDS used to purchase the gun must be
the purchaser's funds.
The intention of this regulation appears to be to prevent a
person unqualified from purchasing a gun giving funds to
a qualified party to make the purchase for the unqualified
party.
Straw Purchase is becoming a minefield full of tripwires.
Sometimes I feel like I am trapped in a Franz Kafka or
George Orwell novel.
