Accused "straw purchase"

[fett92208]

Hi, new here. I wanted to know what your thought is on this. I went to fleet farm Friday night to buy a gun, would have been my third from there. I got all the paperwork filled out, all was good, approved as usual, got up to the register and my fiance got his card out to pay for everything (we had other purchases as well) and they told me I had to buy it with my own money. I told them I'm unemployed and he is the supporter of our family. They said they couldn't sell it to me because it would be a straw purchase. My other two guns from there have also been purchased with his money. I asked if I could come back with cash and buy it and the manager said it would have to be my own cash. Maybe I should have shut up? I don't have my own cash. I argued with him. I was under the impression, at least by the atf's definition, that a straw purchase is buying for a prohibited person, which 1, it was not for him, and 2, he is not a prohibited person, he just bought a gun from them last week. Am I wrong? When I asked the manager specifically if I'm allowed to buy a gun there again, he skated around the answer. My dilemma is, now they know who I am, did they put me on some kind of "don't sell to her" list, because the dude I normally work with went though all the trouble of mounting the scope on gun for there for me already and I'd really like to have it. But if I go in there with cash, are they also going to look at me funny that maybe I'm "doing the straw purchase again" since they know me and they know I don't have an income. I shouldn't have to walk in there with a freaking pay stub to buy a gun. What are your thoughts please.

[zukiphile]

... I was under the impression, at least by the atf's definition, that a straw purchase is buying for a prohibited person,...

Though you will find that in some descriptions of a straw purchase more generally (a purchase by an agent because the principle is somehow prohibited), there has been successful prosecution even where the principle isn't a prohibited person.

If this transpired precisely as you've described, this sounds like you had a hypervigilant clerk who didn't grasp what a straw purchase is. That your fiance is the one paying for the item doesn't make him the transferee.

Thread on the ideas involved:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...straw+purchase

Consider which is harder:
1. fighting your way to the correct answer, or
2. taking in the money your fiance has gifted to you and buying the gun.

[JWT]

I've seen the same type transaction refused for the same reason at a local gun store. The owner said it was a straw purchase and asked the two people to leave the store. He stated he would not risk his FFL license for allowing such a purchase.

[Lohman446]

He stated he would not risk his FFL license for allowing such a purchase.

I get the idea of erring on the side of caution. I was once told "make sure when you are doing something in business that you are comfortable seeing it on 60 Minutes".

[Rangerrich99]

Not too long ago I was at the counter of my local Sportsman's Warehouse asking some questions about powders when a couple walked up and in short order decided to buy a gun (don't remember now make/model). They went through the paperwork and then the girl piped up and said that the gun was going to be for her, but her boyfriend was going to pay for it. The sales rep, told them that her BF should 'buy' the gun, fill out the relevant paperwork, etc., and then gift her the gun or sell it to her, or whatever.

She insisted two more times that the gun was to be hers, but that her BF was going to pay for it. At that point, the sales rep pulled the gun back off the counter and told them that he couldn't sell either of them the gun. They left in a huff, but it seemed to me that the sales rep did everything he could to understand how the process needed to work; they just didn't get it.

I asked the rep that was working with me about powders what happened, and he told me that the company policy was that the name on the paperwork had to be the same as the name on the credit card. Whether that's new or not, I don't know. I guess this policy is becoming more widespread though.

[zukiphile]

I asked the rep that was working with me about powders what happened, and he told me that the company policy was that the name on the paperwork had to be the same as the name on the credit card.

I think that policy is easier to understand than the law on this point. A bright line like that, erring on the side of caution as Lohman puts it, will alienate some customers. A store may prefer an alienated customer to a clerk misremembering something more complex and getting it wrong.

The sales rep, told them that her BF should 'buy' the gun, fill out the relevant paperwork, etc., and then gift her the gun or sell it to her, or whatever.

Sounds like the clerk was trying to be helpful, but he was actually driving them closer to a straw purchase with the bolded advice.

[mehavey]

Husband-Wife: No Problem
Unrelated* Adults: Red Flag/Big Problem
I would have done the same as the clerk at that point.




*Until you're actually married and/or Common Law established/documented, you ain't related.

[fett92208]

Here's what I don't understand. If the "not related" part throws up a big flag, why did they say they would have okayed it if I was on the check card account too (related or not)? Even if I was on the account but it was his card at the time, they were being extremely inconsistent in what they were saying. Name on the account or not doesn't prove whose money it is. Bottom line is, I know a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, especially if they feel it's a good one. I understand trying to keep people from straw purchasing. Who, though, when doing a straw purchase, actually brings the person into the store they're illegally buying a gun for? Maybe it's happened. Idk.
Still wondering though, do they call anyone and say "hey I just had an attempted straw purchase" and if so, how do you clear your name?

[mehavey]

Read the last line op cit above.

[Frank Ettin]

R and Q come into a gun shop. At the counter Q picks out a gun and fills out the 4473. R hands the clerk money to pay. What just happened? Did --

1. R just make a gift of money to Q so that Q could buy a gun for himself/herself, and which he/she intends to keep?
   
   
2. R just loan money to Q so that Q could buy a gun for himself/herself, and which he/she intends to keep (much like the bank loans you money to buy something when you use a credit card)?
   
   
3. R just pay for his gun which Q is taking possession of as R's agent with the intention of later transferring, by prior arrangement, it to R?

In alternatives 1 and 2 Q is the actual transferee and can truthfully answer "yes" to question 11a on the 4473. In alternative 3, Q is not the actual transferee and would be lying, violating 18 USC 922(a)(6), and committing an unlawful straw purchase by answering "yes" to question 11a. But the clerk can not distinguish among alternatives 1, 2, or 3 based on what is happening in front of him.

Given what could be at stake for the business I can't really argue with the shop being disinclined to take any chances.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Deleted to make Frank Ettin a happy guy...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fett92208

I was under the impression, at least by the atf's definition, that a straw purchase is buying for a prohibited person, which 1, it was not for him, and 2, he is not a prohibited person, he just bought a gun from them last week. Am I wrong?

Your impression is incorrect, and yes -- you are wrong.

Here's a link to the BATFE Form 4473:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download

Take note of question number 11a. "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?"

If you are not buying the firearm(s) with your own money, then you are not the buyer. End of discussion. Depending on your state's laws, there is probably nothing to prevent your fiance from buying the gun and then giving it to you as a gift. But you cannot "buy" it using somebody else's money.

Originally Posted by buckhorn cortez

If your fiancé filled out the 4473 and then gave the gun to you - that could have been construed as a straw purchase because the gun was purchased by one person and then given to a person who did not fill out the 4473 and pass the background check.

How is that a straw purchase? If I were to buy a gun on December 10th and give it to my wife for Christmas, unless my state happens to be one that requires ALL transfers to go through an FFL there's absolutely no problem. Giving a firearm as a gift is completely legal, as long as the recipient isn't a prohibited person.

How would this case (if your suggestion was followed) be any different from me giving my wife a gun for Christmas?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by buckhorn_cortez

..The definition of a straw purchase is -....

Why are people still getting this wrong?

Note: The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the "straw purchase" case, Abramski v. U. S.. Based on that ruling the following explanation of what constitute a straw purchase under the ATF interpretation reflects current law. See here for a discussion of the Abramski ruling.


The actual offense is violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on the 4473 (specifically about who is the actual buyer), and has nothing to do with the ultimate recipient being a prohibited person.

See the ATF publication Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, 2005, at page 165 (emphasis added):

15. STRAW PURCHASES

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...

So, if --

1. X says to Y, "Here's the money; buy that gun and then we'll do the transfer to me [when I get back to town, or whenever else].", or
   
   
2. X says to Y, "Buy that gun and hold it for me; I'll buy from you when I get my next paycheck."

or anything similar, if Y then buys the gun, he is not the actual buyer. He is buying the gun as the agent of X, on his behalf; and X is legally the actual buyer. If Y claims on the 4473 that he is the actual buyer, he has lied and violated 18 USC 922(a)(6). His subsequently transferring the gun to X in full compliance with the law, does not erase his prior criminal act of lying on the 4473.

Some more examples --

• If X takes his own money, buys the gun and gives the gun to someone else as a gift, free and clear without reimbursement of any kind, X is the actual purchaser; and it is not a straw purchase.
  
  
• If X takes his money and buys the gun honestly intending to keep it for himself and later sells it to another person, X is the actual purchaser; and it is not a straw purchase.
  
  
• If X takes his money and buys the gun intending to take it to the gun show next week to see if he might be able to sell it to someone at a profit, X is the actual purchaser; and it's not a straw purchase. He may, however have other problems if he manages to sell the gun at the gun show, and the transfer there isn't handled properly. He might also have problems if he does this sort of thing too frequently, and the ATF decides he's acting as a dealer without the necessary license.
  
  
• If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.

Whether or not a transaction is an unlawful straw purpose will often be a question of intent. But prosecutors in various situations can convince juries of intent, often from circumstantial evidence. A slip of the tongue, posting something on the Internet, tracks left by money transfers have all, in one way or another, and in various contexts, helped convince a jury of intent.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Why are people still getting this wrong?

Because the ATF is getting it wrong. The ATF supports ""dontlie.org" and their agents provide training videos for the organization to distribute to FFL's to train their employees on straw purchases. The latest videos from the organization featuring the ATF agents contain the straw purchase definition.

The ATF is the group promulgating the information - if you don't like it - take it up with the ATF. Don't bag on me about it...

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by buckhorn_cortez

Because the ATF is getting it wrong....

No they are not. See the link to the ATF Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, 2005, in my post. And the Supreme Court in Ambramski validated that.

We've discussed this here many times.

[Theohazard]

Frank, I have a quick question. You posted the following as an example of a legal purchase:

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

If X takes his money and buys the gun intending to take it to the gun show next week to see if he might be able to sell it to someone at a profit, X is the actual purchaser; and it's not a straw purchase.

And you posted the following as an example of an illegal straw purchase:

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.

My question is this: What if X buys the gun with the intention of selling it to Y, but Y has no knowledge of this when the purchase is made? It seems to me that if Y isn't aware of this and X just buys it hoping to sell it to Y, that it's not a straw purchase.

Basically, it is my understanding that the reason it's legal to buy a gun with the hope of selling it at a gun show is that the buyer isn't involved in the transaction and has no knowledge of it, is that correct? Or am I wrong on this and the difference between your two examples is the fact that X has the intent to specifically sell it to Y?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Theo

My question is this: What if X buys the gun with the intention of selling it to Y, but Y has no knowledge of this when the purchase is made? It seems to me that if Y isn't aware of this and X just buys it hoping to sell it to Y, that it's not a straw purchase.

Basically, it is my understanding that the reason it's legal to buy a gun with the hope of selling it at a gun show is that the buyer isn't involved in the transaction and has no knowledge of it, is that correct?

That's correct.

Emphases added. The emphases below are simply to tie the response to the language above.

The bolded language above refers to an understanding between X and Y.

If Y hasn't any knowledge of X's plans, he isn't a party to an agreement with X.

[Lohman446]

Why are people still getting this wrong?

Because it is very hard to train individuals to the nuances of a Supreme Court decision. It is much easier to train people by saying: The person purchasing (easily interpreted as paying for) the gun must be the person who the gun is for. If you have any doubt about this do not complete the sale.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

That's correct.

Emphases added. The emphases below are simply to tie the response to the language above.

The bolded language above refers to an understanding between X and Y.

If Y hasn't any knowledge of X's plans, he isn't a party to an agreement with X.

Exactly right. If I have occasion to post that again, I'll try to remember to revise it to be more clear.

[WVsig]

Show me the money... It has been demonstrated many many times that the source of the money in relation to who fills out the form 4473 has a lot to do with what is and is not a straw purchase.

In todays climate you cannot blame a FFL and their employees for being cautious about these types of transactions. In the end always fill out the 4473 yourself and pay for the gun with your credit card, debit card, cash check etc... from your wallet and you will not have this issue.

[BarryLee]

So, if these two had been legally married instead of engaged would that have changed anything?

I was at a gun shop and a married couple came in and selected a gun and discussed openly that both would posses it at different times. I have no idea how they did the paperwork or who paid, but obvious one person not on the paperwork was going to posses that gun at times. Was that legal?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by BL

So, if these two had been legally married instead of engaged would that have changed anything?

It's possible that if the couple were married legally (how would a clerk determine that?), in many states the clerk could reason that their money was a marital asset so that the card from his wallet would necessarily be paid from money that is also hers.

Possession at various times isn't really the issue. The issue is whether the person who fills out the form is the real buyer. If you are buying it on behalf of another person pursuant to an agreement you have with that person, you are not the true buyer.

I just bought a .22 rifle for my little girl. I took her to a show, had her try it for size, asked her if it was comfortable, etc, then filled out the paper work and paid. I was the true buyer even though I bought it for her use when I take her shooting. It's mine; I have the power to sell it, or trade it or keep it for myself, and she has no recourse against me.

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile

It's possible that if the couple were married legally (how would a clerk determine that?), in many states the clerk could reason that their money was a marital asset so that the card from his wallet would necessarily be paid from money that is also hers.

Marriage has nothing to do with a straw purchase, neither does marital assets.

What matters is who the actual buyer/transferee is.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Marriage has nothing to do with a straw purchase, neither does marital assets.

What matters is who the actual buyer/transferee is.

Your two sentences above are contradictory and only the second is correct.

As I've noted above, the identity of the true buyer is the issue. Where a buyer uses funds that are hers or to which she has a claim, that fact removes from consideration the a clerk's question about whether she is a true buyer simply because she is using someone else's money for the purchase.

As I noted to you on January 20, 2016,

Since one of your requests was for a source of the relationship between the idea of a straw party and agency, the entry from the fifth edition of Blacks Law dictionary may help:

If she is buying an item with her own marital property, there wouldn't be a presumption by a clerk that she is purchasing as an agent for another.

[Skans]

What the OP describes sounds like a straw purchase to me. Whether it is or isn't, if I were the FFL selling the gun, I would have absolutely denied the purchase too. Too many red flags: Unrelated parties; purchaser using another person's credit card to complete the transaction. Crap, that's enough right there. In fact, if the one who's name was on the credit card came back to the shop within a few days looking to make the same purchase, I'd decline.

Folks, there are just too many Antis and Agents and potential Bad Guys out there looking to give a gun store owner a real bad day!