Is a 3-way trade legal?

[KD5NRH]

It has nothing to do with "could not legally buy one for themselves."

That is NOT part of the 'straw purchase' conditions.

No, but establishing that the buyer is not circumventing the background check process on behalf of a prohibited person is supposed to be the intent of the question. That is why I would love to see a well-prepared case similar to this come up in court before a decent judge.

An example that has happened: I bought my wife a shotgun for her birthday. We both went to the store, she filled out the 4473, passed the instant check and took possession of the gun, and I paid. The owner had just sold me a handgun a couple weeks before, and I did lay my CHL out with the cash in case he had any doubts. A picky prosecutor could say I had her straw purchase the gun so I could then give it to her, but that would clearly not fall within the intent of the question, particularly since she passed the check and I was exempt from it due to the CHL.

An example of the case I would like to see to establish precedent: Bubba Cruffler decides he wants to trade off one of his as-issued WWI 1911s for a WWII one, so he posts WTT, noting that he has a C&RFFL and will provide a copy on request. Charlie CHL a few counties away knows of a local shop with a great deal on just such a gun, so after establishing that Bubba is a good guy, he goes to the shop and buys the gun with full intent to immediately trade it off, then goes to meet Bubba, showing his DL and CHL before the trade as a similar good-faith proof that he can receive the WWI 1911. Bubba, of course, gives Charlie a signed copy of his C&RFFL and fills out his bound book with the disposition of the WWI and acquisition of the WWII, but as he's doing so, Adolf ATFGuy comes swooping in with the local SWAT team in a black helicopter to grab Bubba and Charlie for their evil(?) deeds.

Bubba, of course, likely had no knowledge that Charlie had just purchased the gun, and did his part by the book, so he should have a fairly easy time of it assuming no other problems are found with his bound book or collection, though getting either gun back will likely be a major hassle. Charlie, OTOH, violated the letter of the "actual buyer" question (and/or instructions) while making a well-documented good-faith effort to ensure that he was not violating its intent. A good outcome for Charlie would establish a precedent that would be helpful for all of us, and likely get the question reworded to more effectively reflect its intent.

[Dave P]

Why don't you all meet in texas and swap stories and rifles? Keep it simple.

If you want paper work, wrap your rifle in a plain brown wrapper. If you want to spend a dollar, buy a coke.

"Daddy, can I please trade this rifle with Suzy - please please??" :barf::barf:

[brickeyee]

Why don't you all meet in texas and swap stories and rifles? Keep it simple.

As long as they are all Texas residents.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b

B. UNLICENSED PERSONS

(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? [Back]

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA? [Back]

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State? [Back]

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]

[Brian Pfleuger]

*delete*

[langenc]

"....shall not be infringed."

We sure accept a lot from DC dont we.

[johnwilliamson062]

have to meet in the handgun owners state and then you can transfer through an FFL.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

...have to meet in the handgun owners state and then you can transfer through an FFL.

Nope, that won't work. Barry, who owns the Defender, may not transfer it in his state, even through an FFL in his state, to Hillary if she is a resident of another state. The Defender must be transferred to Hillary through an FFL in her state.

Originally Posted by brickeyee quoting ATF FAQ B2

...A person may ...acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides....

Perhaps they could all meet at an FFL in Hillary's state of residence. Then the long guns could be transferred there as long as (1) the transfer by Hillary of the WASR to Nancy complies with the laws of Hillary's state and Nancy's state; and (2) the transfer by Nancy of the Baretta to Barry complies with the laws of Hillary's state and Barry's state. Now I'm just not too sure that the latter would be okay, but I'm not too inclined to delve further into it.

[skeezix]

And here I thought this question was mostly concerning wives until I started reading the actual posts.

[psyfly]

Okay, this is getting interesting.

I agree with the above post(s) concerning the very small likelihood that anyone cares or that anyone would get "caught". Probably goes on a lot, anyway.

But, I remain interested in whether or not it is, technically, legal.

I still suspect it's not and, as such, represents another way they meddle where they have no business.

"We sure accept a lot from DC dont we."

Way too d.... much. Amen.

Will

[Brian Pfleuger]

I agree with the above post(s) concerning the very small likelihood that anyone cares or that anyone would get "caught". Probably goes on a lot, anyway.

But, I remain interested in whether or not it is, technically, legal.

I still suspect it's not and, as such, represents another way they meddle where they have no business.

It is absolutely positively legal. If I buy a gun from you it makes no difference how long I keep it or even if I intend to keep it.

There may be certain ways to complete the transaction that WOULD BE illegal but the are straight forward way to complete the transaction that are NOT illegal.

"A" buys guns from "B" and "C".
"A" sells gun "C" to "B" and keeps gun "B".

Nothing illegal at all. Obvious and straight forward. I say again, If each individual transaction is legal in and of itself the the totality of the transactions is every bit as legal as each individual transaction.

[johnwilliamson062]

Fiddletown is right about which state. I misspoke.

If each individual transaction is legal in and of itself the the totality of the transactions is every bit as legal as each individual transaction.

What I am saying, and I believe some others also, is that the transaction where you accept the gun without the intent of keeping it is illegal. If it wasn't everyone would be running their own little personal used guns store.

[B.N.Real]

I like keeping my transfers within my own state between individuals.

That interstate thing can get you in trouble fast.

Buying a gun from a dealer through the internet to a FFL in my state? Sure.

But everything else for me is local.

That's just too much out in the air for me to try - ever.

[Brian Pfleuger]

What I am saying, and I believe some others also, is that the transaction where you accept the gun without the intent of keeping it is illegal

No, it's not. What would be the time frame? Do you have to intend to keep the gun for a month? 2 weeks? 2days? 2years?

There is no time frame. You are not hiding anything. There are a series of perfectly legal transactions happening. All gun are transfered through FFLs, all parties are completing the neccesary forms.

There is no law against buying a gun with the intent to trade it for another gun whether it be in 2 years or 2 minutes.