October 14, 2010, 09:56 AM | #1 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 2,119
|
Straw purchase??
Scenario:
Buyer and wife life in town X in Wyoming. Buyer is out of town. Seller lives in town Y, also in Wyoming. Buyer, wife, and seller all legal to own, purchase, etc. Buyer wants to buy gun from Seller. Seller offers to deliver gun to buyer's home to buyers wife, on behalf of buyer. 1) Straw purchase? Or is a straw purchase only through an FFL? 2) Better for buyer to send funds through the mail to Seller, or to have wife pay Seller directly. 3) Or better to have seller to sell to wife, and then wife can sell/gift to Buyer? |
October 14, 2010, 10:20 AM | #2 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
As long as the above transaction conforms to all state and local laws and ordinances and everybody is legally allowed by the federal government to possess firearms, I can't see what federal laws or regulations it would break, but I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the intertubes. |
|
October 14, 2010, 01:57 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
A more practical definition of a straw purchase is when a non-prohibited person makes a purchase and accepts a transfer of a firearm for a prohibited person, then illegally turns the firearm over to the prohibited person. It doesn't really matter if the seller is or isn't an FFL, or if a 4473 is or is not involved.
In the scenario above, the wife is not a prohibited person, so I don't see anything to turn the transaction into a straw purchase. |
October 14, 2010, 02:19 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
If I'm understanding the question right the wife is going to accept the delivery for the husband? Like it was stated no problemo if I understood the question right.
While we are at it being I have a FFL-03 can my wife sign and accept delivery of a firearm if I am not at home on my behalf?
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
October 14, 2010, 02:28 PM | #5 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 14, 2010, 02:38 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
|
Tamara is right, the crime is lying on form 4473.
It is still an illegal straw purchase even if the person you're giving it to is not a prohibited person (because again, the crime is lying on the form). It seems in OP no form 4473 was ever used and thus this is not a straw purchase. so to answer: 1. Not a straw purchase. Star purchases can only happen when a 4473 is involved, which is only involved when dealing with an FFL. 2. Doesn't matter who pays for it because you're not dealing with an FFL. If you were dealing with an FFL it matters very much who pays for it. 3. If dealing with an FFL this would be the best course of action, but again, no FFL here. 4. State laws apply I am also not a lawyer.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner |
October 14, 2010, 04:51 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
If you knowingly transfer a gun to a non gun allowed person you break other laws. Like a brother has domestic issues cannot get a gun so you give him one knowing he cant buy one, that is against the law. Be careful.
|
October 14, 2010, 05:05 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
It is perfectly legal for a husband/wife, father/mother, brother/sister etc. to purchase a firearm for a close relative so long as all parties involved are permitted to possess the weapon. Example: a father may buy a firearm for his son even though his son is not old enough to buy it for himself.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
October 14, 2010, 05:22 PM | #9 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
There is no such federal crime as a "straw purchase". Lying on a Form 4473 to obtain a firearm for someone else is a crime. It is popularly known as a "straw purchase". Please, please study the laws carefully before offering opinions on these topics. |
|
October 14, 2010, 07:45 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
|
Quote:
There is a difference between possessing and purchasing. Sometimes the requirements differ. For instance, here in MI it is legal for an 18 y/o to possess (own) a handgun. That is a state law. But federal law states it is illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL. So a 19 y/o here in MI could own a handgun but he could not buy it. So the obvious question is now "how does one come to own a handgun but not purchase it?" Here in MI, the normal process is through gifting. Dad buys a handgun, Dad then goes to the sheriff's office and has the gun's registration (it's called a safety check here in MI) transferred to 19 y/o Johnny. This is kosher. What is NOT kosher is if Johnny gives Dad money to buy the handgun and Dad goes and buys the handgun and then transfers it to Johnny. This is a straw purchase. Even though Johnny is able to possess a handgun. It would also be illegal (here in MI) to gift the pistol to Johnny if Johnny is under 18. Here is where it gets strange. If you're not an FFL, it is totally legal for 19 y/o Johnny to buy a handgun from you here in MI. As long as you're not an FFL. This is state law. He just can't buy it from you if he is under 18. All previous examples apply only to MI law (I think I covered them all anyways, but making a blanket statement here). I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at Motel 6 last night.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner Last edited by Sefner; October 14, 2010 at 07:47 PM. Reason: clarity |
|
October 14, 2010, 08:31 PM | #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 14, 2010, 09:05 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
|
Quote:
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner |
|
October 14, 2010, 11:00 PM | #13 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I think you're overlooking a few salient points. Such as 18 U.S.C. § 922(d). Last edited by Aguila Blanca; October 14, 2010 at 11:13 PM. |
||
October 14, 2010, 11:17 PM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
October 15, 2010, 12:34 AM | #15 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
So, fiddletown and Tamara, essentially what you are saying is that in any state that allows direct, face-to-face sales of handguns without going through an FFL, if Jane Doe comes to your house in response to a for sale ad you placed in the local Shoppers' Gotcha paper, she says she'll take the gun, and shows you a carry permit from that state to prove to you that she's not prohibited ('cause you're a law-abiding type citizen and you asked), then after paying you she immediately drives home and hands to gun to her ex-convict, gang banger boyfriend who just finished 15 years of hard time ... no straw purchase has taken place because she didn't have to lie on a Form 4473?
That IS what you're both saying, but I hope you don't believe it. 'Cause I'll bet if the BATFE guys came to ask you about the details of the transaction, they'd be calling it a straw purchase. |
October 15, 2010, 12:44 AM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
October 15, 2010, 02:15 AM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
I don't think the OP was interested in finding out what the BATFE FAQ refers to as a straw purchase just to find out what the BATFE FAQ refers to as a straw purchase. I think he was interested in understanding what type(s) of transfers are legal and what types are not. To make a blanket statement that the only "straw purchase" is one involving lying on the 4473 just because that's the only place the term appears in the BATFE FAQ is grossly misleading, since the "practical" (as I continue to regard it) meaning of a straw purchase is ANY purchase conducted by a buyer as a surrogate for a person who isn't legally allowed to make the purchase him/herself. |
|
October 15, 2010, 09:01 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2009
Location: New Philadelphia, Oh
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
Otherwise, in this example, this seller is satisfied with proof, that the buyer is a legal person. Dealer/seller is totally legal. Is that not correct? I would interpret this as once the gun transfers from legal seller to legal buyer, seller is covered, and buyer's actions afterwards, are purely their own. The intent of the party/parties is important here. Simply my opinion, sixgun Last edited by sixgun67; October 15, 2010 at 09:13 AM. |
|
October 15, 2010, 09:03 AM | #19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think you are confusing the legality of "purchasing" vs "transferring". In your example where Mrs Doe buys the gun privately for her husband, the purchase is perfectly legal. Until such time as she actually transfers the gun, no crime has been committed. And once she does transfer it, she's guilty whether she purchased the gun for that purpose or not. The ATF may call that a "straw purchase", and the media certainly will, but that is not consistent with their own published documentation (as quoted above). |
||
October 15, 2010, 09:13 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
However, that didn't save that guy in the gun show in Texas from being convicted: http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...=422790&page=2 Regarding that case, this ATF report fails to accuse the seller of violating any statute: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...pelandCase.pdf He went to jail all the same though. Presumably it's that whole "aiding and abetting" thing. Note that they referred to this as a "straw" purchase, but as previously noted, that is in contrast with the ATF publication that fiddletown quoted. |
|
October 15, 2010, 11:54 AM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
The fact that the legal girlfriend buys the firearm for the prohibited person boyfriend makes it a straw purchase, irrespective of whether or not the seller was a willing and knowing participant in the overall transaction. Even if there was no 4473 for her to lie on. |
|
October 15, 2010, 12:01 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
|
|
October 15, 2010, 01:22 PM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
It appears from the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide I cited earlier, the ATF considers only a violation of 18 USC(a)(6), and only with regard to the first question of the 4473, to be a straw purchase. Nonetheless, I suspect that ATF would still prosecute violations of 18 USC 922(d), conspiracies to violate 18 USC 922(g) or violations of 18 USC 922(h), even it ATF wouldn't call those crimes "straw purchases." |
|
October 15, 2010, 01:48 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...pelandCase.pdf The opening paragraph states that Copeland had reasonable cause to believe the person he was selling to was prohibited Later they refer to the middle man as the "straw purchaser" (page 2) I agree with you though - it makes no sense given their statement in the publication you quoted earlier. To the ATF, every transfer they don't like is either a "straw purchase" or a "gun-show loophole". So where does that leave us in interpreting the term "straw purchase"? Well, since it generally is intended to describe in illegal act, it only makes sense if it means lying on form 4473 - because that is the only way in which an eligible buyer, buying a legal firearm, can make a purchase illegal. If it's a private sale, and the gun itself is legal, and the buyer is eligible, then it's a legal transfer, period (even if the seller is prohibited, the buyer is still not breaking the law). So why call it by a name that smacks of illegality? Last edited by divil; October 15, 2010 at 01:50 PM. Reason: taking out some irrelevant bits |
|
October 15, 2010, 03:15 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 195
|
Quote:
A. Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee. An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law byfalsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form. Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form 4473. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records. The following pertains to is what is commonly known as a face to face transfer between two private parties and without an FFL. B. UNLICENSED PERSONS (B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? 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? 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 by law or by official departmental policy. An officer subject to a disabling restraining order would violate the law if the officer received or possessed a firearm or ammunition for other than official use. (See Question Q13 on officers’ receipt and possession of firearms and ammunition after a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The government exception does not apply to such convictions.) [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(32), 922(g)(8) and 925(a)(1)]
__________________
‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’ — Abraham Lincoln Last edited by Mr Lucky; October 15, 2010 at 11:24 PM. |
|
|
|