[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 1-DAB

...i suspect the ATF likes the uncertainty of what constitutes a straw (when was the check written, when did the parties decide what to do with the gun...), so if they want to make a case, they can do so...

Actually there is no uncertainty about the legal definition, at least under the interpretation ATF has used since 1992 and which has now been confirmed by SCOTUS.

1. You're buying the gun for yourself (you're the actual buyer) if --
   
   
   1. You're buying the gun with the intention of giving it to someone as a gift.
      
      
   2. You're buying the gun with the intention of keeping it, but later you decide to sell it.
      
      
   3. You're buying the gun to sell, but you have no buyer. In that case you have to find a buyer and are taking a risk that you will be able to sell it to someone at a price acceptable to you.
   
   
2. But you are not the actually buyer (making it a straw purchase) if --
   
   
   1. You've made prior arrangements with a particular person that you will buy the gun and then transfer it to him, and he
      
      
      • gves you the money for it, or
        
        
      • agrees to reimburse you.
      
      
   2. In that case, based on well established legal principles, you are not buying the gun for yourself. Rather you are buying the gun as the agent of (or proxy for) the actual purchaser.
   
   
3. So since you (we hope) know what you are doing, you know if it's an illegal straw purchase.
   
   
4. Yes, it's a question of intent. But many crimes involve questions of intent. Prosecutors frequently successfully use all sorts of circumstantial evidence to prove intent to the satisfaction of juries.