November 7, 2013, 09:50 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Strawman purchase???
I have a duplicate gun of one I already have being delivered Saturday at my LGS.
My son would like the gun. It is already paid for so my question is: Can my son present his DL and CCW and fill out the 4473 and take possession of the gun or must I do that? I know I will have to sign for acceptance at the LGS but am concerned, some might view this as a strawman sale. What are your views?
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
November 7, 2013, 10:03 AM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Strawman purchase???
The 4473 asks if the applicant is the actual purchaser. If you paid for the gun, he is not the actual purchaser.
Why not just you pick it up and give it to him, as I assume that's the plan anyway? If you paid for the gun with the intent of him paying you back, that would also be a straw purchase. There's an ongoing case where a son did this for his father, only because the son could get an LE discount. He's been charged as a straw buyer. |
November 7, 2013, 10:04 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,053
|
Sorry, misunderstood the question after reading Brian's response!
|
November 7, 2013, 10:05 AM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Strawman purchase???
|
November 7, 2013, 10:08 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,053
|
I misread that as, I was gonna buy a gun that I ordered but changed my mind. Can my son buy that gun instead.
|
November 7, 2013, 10:09 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
I am thinking I will fill out the form to stay within the law and just give the gun to him.
I think the intent of a straw man purchase is to acquire a gun for someone who is legally prohibited from owning one. My son is perfectly legal and he has a CCW. That is what prompted the question.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
November 7, 2013, 10:11 AM | #7 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Strawman purchase???
Quote:
|
|
November 7, 2013, 12:46 PM | #8 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
That doesn't sound right. Do you have a link to the case, Brian?
The whole intent of "actual purchaser" is to make sure the person filling out the form is keeping the gun. That would be a rather unusual new type of law that tracks where purchase money comes from. I don't understand how the ATF could prosecute someone for filling out the form as the future owner and then possessing the gun as owner. I'd let the FFL decide if this was okay with him. Given the fact that the only part of the "purchase" that is legally important is the transfer, I can't see the problem. Last edited by RX-79G; November 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM. |
November 7, 2013, 01:06 PM | #9 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
The case in question is found here.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
November 7, 2013, 01:26 PM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
In that case the person filling out the form was not keeping the gun. That would be like the OP filling it out.
But the person signing the form here is the son, who's keeping the gun. Abrahmski transfered a gun with someone else's money that he had no intention of keeping. That's why they called it a straw purchase - both factors together. The money demonstrated intent. The OP's son will transfer a gun to himself that is for himself. The money doesn't come into it because he is not transferring the gun with the intent to hand it off to the person that paid for it. Very different. |
November 7, 2013, 01:42 PM | #11 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||
November 7, 2013, 01:48 PM | #12 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Well, on reading the 4473 and it's instructions, I don't think it's entirely clear that this situation is adequately addressed to my liking. I guess I'd wait for one of our resident lawyers to chime in.
In any case, I see no reason why the father wouldn't just pick up the gun and gift it to his son, which is what he's doing anyway.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
November 7, 2013, 02:01 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Geeterman, do both you and your son live in Arizona and the gun is being purchased in AZ?
Quote:
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|
November 7, 2013, 02:35 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 8, 2008
Location: 8B ID
Posts: 1,753
|
Quote:
This has saved me lots of time by not waiting for a background check to be done (usually 2-3 minutes for the phone call to BCI instead of 15-45 waiting for the background check), but the 4473 still gets done for every purchase or transfer through an FFL.
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776 |
|
November 7, 2013, 02:54 PM | #15 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Tom,
The OP's situation is like the raffle winner mentioned on the form. He is providing a gun free of charge and his son is the one filling out the 4473 as the person taking ownership of it. A raffle is a clear legal example of how someone can become the 4473 transferee and not have been the one that paid for it. All the ATF cares about is whether you are keeping the gun. Gifts (post transfer) are essentially an allowed exception, and a gift is disproved by the ultimate receiver having paid for the gun up front. Abrahmski received money up front to buy a firearm he planned to pass on to the person funded it. The OP's situation is nothing like that - his son is "or otherwise acquiring the firearm for [him]self", like the form says. |
November 7, 2013, 02:55 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Quote:
Yep. We hold memberships in the same ranges. This whole thing came up because I do not need two of the same pistol. It did not help that Bud's was unable to deliver for almost a year. I know my son is going to like the gun. I just don't want to run afoul BATF because of the 4473. I will just fill the thing out as I am the one who paid for it and just give the gun to him. We will both have a good time shooting "our" matching guns.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
|
November 7, 2013, 02:56 PM | #17 | |
Member
Join Date: May 11, 2009
Location: Putnam County, NY
Posts: 96
|
With respect, I don't think Tom or Brian have it right.
I'm an FFL, although a relatively new one. It does not matter who paid for the gun. What matters is who is the actual transferee, that is, who is the gun actually for? The ATF had training videos on this on YouTube. I tried going back to get you the link, but they've been removed. Quote:
The father completing the 4473 with the intent of giving it to the son is actually closer to being a straw purchase. (It's *not* a straw purchase, because that gift is allowed.) However, if the gun is actually intended for the son, it is preferable to have the son fill out the 4473. Go ahead and ask your FFL. Neither action would be illegal, but I'll bet he tells you to have your son do the 4473. |
|
November 7, 2013, 03:15 PM | #18 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
This is a pretty muddled situation.
The question for the OP: Have you already paid for the gun?
The way I see it is that the OP has not actually bought the gun yet. He has merely entered into a contract to buy the gun. Any contract can be unwound if the parties agree. So the strategy here is for the OP and the dealer to effectively agree that the OP is relieved of his commitment to buy the gun so that the son is then free to buy it himself. Quote:
Also, note the instructions for question 11.a. on the April 2012 revision of the 4473 (emphasis in original): Of course, some "straw purchase" law might be changing before too long. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a straw purchase case. This was discussed in this thread.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
November 7, 2013, 03:26 PM | #19 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
There are two code sections pertaining to this. 18 USC § 924(a)(1)(A) states: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||||
November 7, 2013, 03:31 PM | #20 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Simple question:
Can I call my son's FFL and pay for a gun my son has on layaway? Can my son then go and do a 4473 and take it home? That's what the OP was asking. I can't imagine how this is possibly a straw purchase when it is exactly what Frank said you have to do over state lines and is almost identical to the raffle example on the form. I think you guys have taken the other case out of context. These laws are a pain at times, but they really aren't the kind of trap suggested here. |
November 7, 2013, 03:43 PM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
If it's your money and I get the gun, it's a gift. If it's your money, I do the transaction, and you get the gun, I'm doing the transaction as your agent or proxy. In that case, I'm not the actual transferee/buyer and so I lie if I answer "yes" to 11.a.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 7, 2013, 03:49 PM | #22 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Exactly what I've been saying and others have been muddling. The OP wasn't doing wrong at all.
|
November 7, 2013, 04:34 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Here is how this whole story unfolded.
I shot a Springfield M1911-A1 Loaded 9mm and REALLY liked it 2 years ago. I was not able to find the gun except by getting in line at a volume distributor. 1) January 2013. I place a reserve order with Bud's for one of these guns and PAY IN ADVANCE to secure my place in line for delivery when the gun becomes available. Bud's cannot tell me when that will be. The gun is paid in full. I query Springfield on the availability of the gun. They tell me the gun is in demand and is on allocation to dealers. Springfield says they run orders of this model every three months or so and hope to have all the preordered guns delivered before the end of the year. Bud's cannot or will not tell me where I am on the list. Just that I have bought and paid for a gun that has not been delivered. So. . .I look at other on-line gun stores. Able's Ammo being one of them. 2) About four weeks ago, Ables sent me an email at 10:56 in the morning that the gun was available for purchase. I jump on the web site at 11:15 and am told the gun is sold out. 3) I ask to be notified when the gun becomes available and sure enough, about 5 days later, the gun is available again. I jump on the web site and snag one. I pay for that one also and it is delivered last week. Able's sells out of the gun again. 4) About one week later, Able's tells me the gun is once again available, but the price has jumped to $999.99. As of today, they still have them listed in stock. 5) I get on the Bud's web page and ask them how it is that Able's can get at least three shipments of that gun and sell them and Bud's cannot find one to sell that has been paid off for almost a year. I get an email that they will look into it and refund my money if I wish. I don't really want to do that as I got the gun $200 cheaper than the going rate. First thing I know, Bud's has a gun and is shipping to my FFL. The whole issue is I really don't need two of them and that is what prompted the question about whose gun it would be. It seems my most effective elective is to take delivery of the gun and fill out the 4473 and be done with it. Then I can meet my son at the range and give it to him. To boil it down, there are two guns, both bought and paid for and one has been delivered and one is soon to be delivered. The soon to be delivered gun was a better buy than the one I got last week. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet to get what you want. I just do not need two of them and don't want to try to sell it to someone I don't know. So I will give it to my son and he can buy me a beer or three.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza Last edited by geetarman; November 7, 2013 at 04:42 PM. |
November 7, 2013, 04:39 PM | #24 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
This stuff makes my brain hurt sometimes....
Lets see if I got it right... Dad orders gun. Pays for it. Has not taken delivery. Wants to give it to son, as a gift. Does DAD fill out the 4473 and say its a gift, or does SON fill out form? That's the question, isn't it?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 7, 2013, 04:45 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
44AMP,
I think the thing to do is for me to fill out the 4473 and then just give the gun to my son.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
|
|