Can I pay for somebody else's gun?

[dakota.potts]

I live with somebody over 21, I'm currently not 21. This person has been wanting a handgun for a while and plans to get a CWP. So, I was thinking a handgun would make a nice Christmas present. I was wondering if I could pay for the gun online and have it sent to my local FFL where the intended recipient can fill out the 4473 and pick it up?

When I worked at Academy, we watched an ATF video that stated that one person could pay for another's firearm if it was a legitimate gift and the recipient was filling out the form appropriately. I thought maybe the same would apply here.

The handgun in mind is not in stock at any local store or else I would just present a gift card for that store.

I'm waiting to hear back from my local FFL now but thought somebody here might have information or case law on the subject

[lamarw]

Why not make it simple and put a check in a Christmas Card?

[cslinger]

As long as the end user / owner is filling out the 4473 I don't see where the problem would be. The person selling the gun online is only concerned with getting the transferring dealers FFL and the cash. If need be simple have the person your are purchasing for listed as the one to be picking up at the transferring dealer.

You pay, they ship, the person you bought for picks up/ fills out the paperwork gets the NICS check done.

Where it gets fuzzy is if you try to buy and take possession by filling out the form getting the background check done on you even if you say it's for a gift. I believe at some point that was technically legal as long as the one getting the gun was legally able to possess but that has always been fuzzy and may now be patently illegal. The point is just have the person you are buying for receive it and fill out the 4473 and it should be all good.

[LogicMan]

How does it work for all of those people who gets guns for Christmas presents?

[kilimanjaro]

With you not being 21, just ordering and paying for a pistol is problematic, to me. It screams 'straw purchase' when the 21-year old shows up to do the paperwork.

I would get a gift certificate to the store, or give a few $100 bills, let the donee do the entire process: selection, ordering, payment, paperwork.

[dakota.potts]

I'm a big fan of tangible gifts so I just wanted to see if there was a way to get it around Christmas without the surprise being given away. Presenting a check may mean the recipient either knowing about the gift too early, or ordering it on Christmas and not getting it for a few weeks.

I may call a local shop and see if they can order the one I want instead. That may be less hassle and I may just have to accept the additional price they would inevitably add on.

It just seemed like ordering it and having it already available to be picked up around Christmas Eve would be quicker, cheaper, and retain some element of surprise. I'm a sentimental gift giver.

I'm wary of the straw sale associations too which is what even caused me to ask. I'm not trying to take possession of it at all, though I will inevitably be shooting it from time to time it won't be mine or bought as a way to circumvent the law. Just to give a nice Christmas gift

[44 AMP]

First, check the other threads about straw purchases.

Then check your state laws.

Federal law does not allow under 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL dealer.

It appears that the ATF uses where the money comes from to determine who is the "actual" purchaser. NOT who fills out the paperwork.

IF you were of legal age, you could buy the gun, yourself, FOR yourself, THEN gift it to anyone you want (who is legal to possess it).

We know that someone else buying a pistol for you, with your money is a crime.

Although I am still unclear on how "your money" is still "your" money after you give it to someone else....the ATF can apparently tell, so that is something to be avoided.

[drobs]

Also worked PT at gun shop for about 5 years. The shop had a smart way of getting around that stupid law. They sold gift checks made out in the exact amount of the firearm w/tax and background check.

[NJgunowner]

I'd just give them the money and let them do what they want with it, no legal entanglements that way.

[cslinger]

I did not realize the att used where the money comes from versus the receiver/one who does the background check. Good info.

I also can see how it would appear the 21 year old was straw purchasing for the younger party.

So yeah sounds like best course of action is to buy them a nice cleaning kit and a gift certificate or cash with it.

[dakota.potts]

Given the relative difficulty of even figuring out an answer, I think I'll call a local store to see if they can order it and give me a price with tax and everything and then just present a handgun safe with enough money to cover the gun and some ammo.

Thanks everybody

[dakota.potts]

I called my local store and they can't get the exact model I want in but can get others very similar. They told me I could pay for it online and put the recipient's name on the order so that only the recipient can complete the 4473 when it comes in and that that would be no different from giving cash as a gift or paying for somebody else's purchase in store which they also said is legal.

I'd like to research this more if only for my own edification. I know it was said ATF uses the source of money to make a determination, where can I find more about that?

[silverbullet6oh]

44 AMP said:

First, check the other threads about straw purchases.

Then check your state laws.

Federal law does not allow under 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL dealer.

It appears that the ATF uses where the money comes from to determine who is the "actual" purchaser. NOT who fills out the paperwork.

IF you were of legal age, you could buy the gun, yourself, FOR yourself, THEN gift it to anyone you want (who is legal to possess it).

We know that someone else buying a pistol for you, with your money is a crime.

Although I am still unclear on how "your money" is still "your" money after you give it to someone else....the ATF can apparently tell, so that is something to be avoided.

So, when I get a paycheck from my company for the work week, and tell my boss that I am going to purchase a gun with the money, then their the ones in trouble for supplying the money I used to purchase my gun, and are the "actual" purchaser?!?!?!

I couldnt resist. This is not a stab at you 44 AMP, more just a poke fun at the ATF.

Lasttime I tried to make a joke, another member on here got really irritated in a different thread and took it way to serious.

But seriously
Its so irritating how the laws are worded. When people get into trouble with the law, they say "but i didn't break any law". Even if they didn't by our standards, most laws are so vague that it can be twisted to the governments favor to try and convict.

[gyvel]

So, when I get a paycheck from my company for the work week, and tell my boss that I am going to purchase a gun with the money, then their the ones in trouble for supplying the money I used to purchase my gun, and are the "actual" purchaser?!?!?!

Jokes aside (and I agree with the sarcastic humor), if you were to take your company's payroll check and just sign it over to the gun store, it could possibly be pushed by some ambitious hot shot BATF guy as a straw purchase.

Remember: We're talking about an agency that classified a shoelace as a machine gun.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dakota.potts

I'd like to research this more if only for my own edification. I know it was said ATF uses the source of money to make a determination, where can I find more about that?

Read up on the case to which Frank Ettin referred in the other current discussion regarding possible straw purchase problems.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=569682

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Angel Alvarez wanted a Glock. Because his nephew, Bruce Abramski, could get one cheaper with a law enforcement discount, Mr. Alvarez bought the Glock through Mr. Abramski, giving Mr. Abramski the money for it. Mr. Abramski bought the Glock and transferred it to his uncle through an FFL (it was an interstate transfer). Mr. Abramki went to jail for lying on the 4473 (Abramski v. US, 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014)).

The take-away from the case is that there was no intent to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. The only intent was to save a few bucks. Both transfers were done through FFLs. The BATFE was not happy.

How far down the bear's throat do you want to stick your arm?

[kilimanjaro]

Dakota, how do you know the gun you want to order is the gun the recipient would buy for themselves? Just a question.

Your idea to gift a small pistol safe with the amount required is a good one. That lets the recipient spend their money on the gun they want.

They even have the option of not buying a gun at all, just bank the money or get the car fixed, something like that. If that's what happens, let it be.

[Nathan]

This is an interesting thread. My understanding is that this is a point of law that most shops will disagree about.

It is legal to take your money to a gun shop and buy a gun, fill out the 4473, go home and gift it to someone.

It is legal to buy a gun online and have it shipped to an ffl, as long as the actual buyer or actual transferee does the 4473.

It is not legal for for a gun to be purchased in any way and be transferred to some one not legally able to buy a gun.

What seems to happen are complex money for straw purchase deals. So then we come to intent. Who's money? What was the pre-gift relationship? Is there someone in the deal who cannot legally purchase whom might benefit from the deal? Hassle factor...is it the right time politically to run this potentially shady, but legal purchase up the flagpole and make a spectacle out of you?

The problem is you are not legally able to buy the gun for yourself. The problem gets complex when you might shoot that gun and that act is misinterpreted.

[44 AMP]

So, when I get a paycheck from my company for the work week, and tell my boss that I am going to purchase a gun with the money, then their the ones in trouble for supplying the money I used to purchase my gun, and are the "actual" purchaser?!?!?!

Oh I get it Silverbullet, and take no offense..

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Angel Alvarez wanted a Glock. Because his nephew, Bruce Abramski, could get one cheaper with a law enforcement discount, Mr. Alvarez bought the Glock through Mr. Abramski, giving Mr. Abramski the money for it. Mr. Abramski bought the Glock and transferred it to his uncle through an FFL (it was an interstate transfer). Mr. Abramki went to jail for lying on the 4473 (Abramski v. US, 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014)).

What I don't quite get is how it is conveniently someone else's money in one case and your money all the rest of the time....

As I understand the summary of the case Frank gave, I don't see how the logic used to support the crime of lying on the 4473 does NOT apply to all wages, tips and compensations used for EVERYTHING in our daily lives.

Since the actual crime in the cited case was lying on the form and NOT the transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person, and that charge of "lying" could ONLY be sustained if the money in the physical possession of Mr Abramski was not "his" money. Since he was convicted a jury must have agreed with this.

All I can see in this case is that there was a crime because the ATF said there was, and a jury convicted. And since this did happen, I can see the possibility of that being applied to other cases where a "second party's money" pays for the gun.

If so, it will again, be up to a jury to decide, and since putting yourself into that situation is something which is simple to avoid, and I recommend doing so.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

As I understand the summary of the case Frank gave, I don't see how the logic used to support the crime of lying on the 4473 does NOT apply to all wages, tips and compensations used for EVERYTHING in our daily lives.

Because once we perform whatever service it is the payment is compensation for, it's OUR money, not the company's. That's how disgruntled workers (aside: has anyone ever encountered a gruntled worker?) get to sue their employer for unpaid wages, or unpaid taxes. That's why, if some entity sends me a check and I lose it or don't receive it, they'll issue a replacement check. They do it because in their books that money already has been recorded as being spent by them -- paid to me, making it my money.

Once they issue that check to me, it doesn't matter if I run the money through my bank account or countersign and endorse it directly over to Frank's Firearms Emporium -- it's my money I'm spending, not my employer's money.

[raimius]

IF the actual buyer of the gun fills out the paperwork, then there should be no problem.

...For your case, I can see two ways of doing that. First, buy a gun, then gift it to your friend. (If they pay for any/all of it, that would be illegal.) As you are not 21, that isn't as easy. Second, gift them the money to buy the gun.
***You never own it!*** If you give them money, they buy it, then hand it to you, that would be viewed as a straw purchase--highly illegal.

The important thing is that the 4473 has the right info.
The Abramski case centered around person A giving money to B, so that B could buy a gun, then immediately give it to A. Essentially, having B act as a "straw purchaser" in order to get a discount. Even though both A and B could legally own the firearm, there was still a straw purchase because person B stated on the federal form that they were the actual buyer, even though they were not...lying on federal paperwork = BAD!

[62coltnavy]

The one case everyone is worried about involved a circumstance where A gave B money that B used to buy a gun for A. B., a police officer, had a special discount on Glocks. He bought the gun (with A's money) filled out a 4473, took the gun to A (his uncle) and transferred it to him at a dealer with a 4473. It was not the source of the money, per se, but that B was buying a gun with A's money FOR A. B was convicted of perjury. The fallacy of the whole case is that if B had bought the gun with his own money, taken it to his uncle and sold it to him, there would have been no issue.

That said, if I take my money and pay for a gun on the internet, and have the seller send it to an FFL for a transfer to someone else, and that someone fills out the 4473 as the "buyer", there is no straw purchase. I have done this before when gifting to an out of state child. And the reason I went this route is (a) this being California, the selection is limited, and if the gun is not on the Roster, I cannot complete the transaction; (b) if it is a rostered firearm, I would have to pay DROS [a California background check fee]($25), state tax (8.5%), and a dealer transfer fee ($40-$75), wait ten days for the background check to clear, then ship the gun to an out of state FFL ($70), where my child would have to pay for a NICS check ($20-$40). The distinction here is that I am using my money to buy a gun for someone who will be the "buyer," not using someone else's money to by a gun for someone else. Plus the fact that I don't ever fill out the 4473, so there is no possibility of their being perjury on the form,.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 62coltnavy

That said, if I take my money and pay for a gun on the internet, and have the seller send it to an FFL for a transfer to someone else, and that someone fills out the 4473 as the "buyer", there is no straw purchase.

Respectfully, if some BATFE agent knew about your transaction and chose to construe it as a straw purchase, you would have to engage an attorney to defend yourself and I don't think it's exactly a slam dunk that you would prevail. Remember, there was no intent to commit a straw purchase in the Abramski case. The problem was that the person who filled out the 4473 as the purchaser did not provide the money, so he wasn't the purchaser.

How is that materially different from your example?

[kilimanjaro]

Aquila, your employer doesn't even have to cut your paycheck before the money you earned is yours. Die at your desk and your estate gets the wages you earned that pay period.

I used to tell people at work I was 'gruntled, thank you', in the morning. It's surprising how many folks have no idea words mean things.

I would be very surprised if the BATFE would look at an underage provider of funds to another purchaser, selecting the firearm, ordering the firearm, doing everything commensurate with a purchase except signing the 4473 form, living in the same household, and thus jointly in constructive possession of the firearm, as anything but a straw purchase.

[44 AMP]

Because once we perform whatever service it is the payment is compensation for, it's OUR money, not the company's....

OK, this applies to our ownership of money OWED to us. Not money we physically have in hand. So, I don't think it applies directly to the case under discussion.

And lets be clear, in the Abramski case, (and, potentially, anything similar) what we are talking about is the intent of the actors, BEFORE the act, is what made it a crime.

Since both parties were legally able to buy & possess the gun, there was no intent to transfer a gun to a prohibited person.

Do we all agree?

Now, absent a verified statement from the person who physically receives the gun (fills out the 4473) how does one determine their intent?? One CANNOT.

One can only infer what their intent was, based on their actions. Do we agree on this?

When a person buys a gun intending to later sell it to someone else, the government often prosecutes the initial buyer under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)( 6 ) for making a false statement about the identity of the buyer that is "material to the lawfulness of the sale." These prosecutions rely on the court-created "straw purchaser" doctrine, a legal fiction that treats the ultimate recipient of a firearm as the "actual buyer," and the immediate purchaser as a mere "straw man."

The lower courts uniformly agree that a buyer's intent to resell a gun to someone who cannot lawfully buy it is a fact "material to the lawfulness of the sale." But the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have split with the Fifth and Ninth Circuits about whether the same is true when the ultimate recipient can lawfully buy a gun.

-from americanbar.org

So, we have the courts themselves split on the issue when the ultimate recipient is legal. In the Abramski case, the argument was that since he intended to sell the gun to someone else BEFORE he bought it, then he lied on the 4473 about being the "actual purchaser".

This case does NOT give us a good review of the law as applied, because Abramski pled "conditionally guilty". (he received probation and a $200 fine)

So the concept was not fully tested in court by this case.

SCOTUS approved of what was done, 5-4.

DO we have a situation here where you can be charged with a crime, based on what the government says was in your mind at the time you performed the legal act of buying a firearm???

It seems so to me, or am I missing something??

[dakota.potts]

So I talked to another 2 FFLs and my ATF regional office and they all said the same thing. They all told me I can pay for the gun and put the order under the recipient's name. Then the recipient can go to the store and fill out the background check and pick it up.

The way it was explained to me, the element of a straw purchase that's a crime is lying on the form. The person receiving the gun as a gift is the actual transferee/purchaser as noted on the form. This way, as long as the intent is for the person doing the background check to receive it, all I'm doing is providing the funds, no different from giving cash in the exact amount of the price of the gun. I'm supplying it either way.

So say the FFLs I've spoken to and my local ATF office.