Quote:
|
Not a straw purchase, but highly unlawful nonetheless.
|
Correct and correct. It's unlawful because you are disqualified from owning the firearm. The seller will not be culpable unless he has reason to believe you are disqualified, but you will be in violation of the law.
Quote:
|
The original purchase was illegal (I think) because my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother used MY money to make the buy, even though he/she isn't a prohibited person.
|
The original purchase was not illegal because no laws were broken.
Quote:
|
Subsequently transferring the firearm to me is certainly illegal.
|
That is correct.
Quote:
|
Are you all SERIOUSLY saying this isn't a straw purchase?
|
If the purchaser didn't fill out a 4473 stating that they are the actual purchaser then they haven't broken any laws until they transfer the firearm to you illegally. That transfer is illegal because they know you are a disqualified person.
Quote:
|
I respectfully submit that if you call your local BATFE field office and ask, they'll tell you this is a straw purchase.
|
Unless the gun was purchased from an FFL or the transaction took place across state lines, or the firearm is one that is specially regulated (NFA item) or the purchaser is a disqualified person then the BATF will tell you that they have no jurisdiction because they enforce federal laws and there were no federal laws broken.
A thing is illegal because there are laws against it. A law enforcement organization enforces laws that pertain to its jurisdiction.
If a firearm transaction takes place between a non-dealer seller and a non-dealer purchaser both residing in the same state and the firearm is a legal firearm not specially regulated by federal law and if the purchaser is a qualified person then there are no federal laws broken and therefore the BATF doesn't have jurisdiction.