A man was refused the sale of a firearm after saying it was a gift for his wife.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I believe that what aarondhgraham described was definitely a straw purchase.

I agree. I've been a manager at an FFL for only a little over three years, so I'm not as experienced as Tom is, but it's my understanding that what Aarond described is indeed a felony straw purchase. I sure as heck wouldn't have allowed it in my store.

[Dreaming100Straight]

A firearms straw purchase is one in which the person in whose name the purchase is made is not the actual purchaser. Classically, the actual purchaser provides the purchaser funds to the schil to use to make the buy, but sometimes they are paid after the sale goes down. Aarondgraham's transaction was a straw purchase even though he was being paid in kind instead of in cash.

[Brit]

WOW!

What is wrong with buying said shotgun, putting it in safe, Husband or Wife uses it?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Most importantly to sell/trade to a specific third party who was consulted prior to the sale to insure that it was a gun that they wanted.

Most important to an analysis of whether transferee is a real buyer or an agent would be whether there was an agency relationship. As the government itself has noted, even the presence of a specifically contemplated third party would not have been prohibited. It would not have created that agency.

His intent prior to the transfer was to transfer the gun (not as a gift) to a specific third party who stated in advance a desire to accept transfer of the gun. That's pretty close to the word for word definition of a straw purchase.

Except for the necessary principle-agent relationship.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It's one thing to buy a gun to sell or trade but with no specific person in mind to sell to or trade to. (e.g. I'm going to buy this gun because it's a great deal and I'm sure I can sell it at a profit or trade it for something I want more.) That's probably legal if you don't do it on a regular basis--but if you do it a lot, you might be guilty of dealing without a license.

Emphasis added.

With no other characteristics there are no prohibitions in federal law regarding that transfer.

Originally Posted by Dreaming100Straight

A firearms straw purchase is one in which the person in whose name the purchase is made is not the actual purchaser. Classically, the actual purchaser provides the purchaser funds to the schil to use to make the buy, but sometimes they are paid after the sale goes down.

Indeed.

The other element found in a customary description of straw purchases for guns and alcohol is a purpose to avoid a legal prohibition regarding the transfer, the true purchaser is prohibited from buying, though that element was undermined by the majority in Abramski.

Generally, a straw purchase is a form of fraud. A straw purchaser engages in a material misrepresentation, a necessary element of fraud.

Originally Posted by Dreaming100Straight

Aarondgraham's transaction was a straw purchase even though he was being paid in kind instead of in cash.

That can be true if there was an agency relationship present, though prior payment may indicate or confirm the presence of that relationship.

This why I asked,

If Aarondhgraham decided to retain the pistol he bought, would he be allowed to keep it?

A true buyer would be entitled to retain it. An agent would not.

[steve4102]

Frank has given us numerous posts on what is and what is NOT a straw purchase.

See here, post #8.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ighlight=straw

So, if --
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

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.

and here, post #29.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...t=straw&page=2

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.
You're buying the gun for yourself (you're the actual buyer) if --

You're buying the gun with the intention of giving it to someone as a gift.

You're buying the gun with the intention of keeping it, but later you decide to sell it.

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.

But you are not the actually buyer (making it a straw purchase) if --

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.

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.

So since you (we hope) know what you are doing, you know if it's an illegal straw purchase.

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.

So, No, buying a firearm with the intent to sell or to trade without having a specific client is NOT a straw.

[NJgunowner]

All felonies require mens rea (a guilty mind).

Eh I don't know where you got that from, but I can guarantee you the courts won't give one crap about how guilty you feel.

Zukiphile - Ug dude, you lost the argument let it go. It was a straw a purchase end of story. You can argue this till the cows come home but if the wrong people found out about this someone would be getting prosecuted and that store could lose its FFL. I think you're trying to make the law say what you want it too, not what it actually does. That won't help you once you're sitting in front of judge contemplating how your life is now ruined.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by NJ

Zukiphile - Ug dude, you lost the argument let it go. It was a straw a purchase end of story.

Thanks. That's illuminating.

There are some concepts involved in straw purchases generally, and as they are applied to firearms transfers by the Court in Abramski. I would encourage anyone interested in the ideas to read the links Steve provided as well as Abramski.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Zukiphile - Ug dude, you lost the argument let it go. It was a straw a purchase end of story.

Actually Zukiphile is correct.

Read Frank Ettin's Definitions posted above.

Here it is again.

...You're buying the gun for yourself (you're the actual buyer) if --

...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...

So according to Frank Ettin, purchasing a firearm with the intent to trade is NOT a Straw if there is no prearranged client, or customer.

[dogtown tom]

steve4102 ....So, No, buying a firearm with the intent to sell or to trade without having a specific client is NOT a straw.

Only one little problem with your conclusion......aarondhgraham did have a specific client in mind.


Furthur, the sixth example Frank gave fits aarondhgraham transaction perfectly:

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.

X= aarondhgraham
Y= his lady friend

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Steve

So according to Frank Ettin, purchasing a firearm with the intent to trade is NOT a Straw if there is no prearranged client, or customer.

That goes to the issue of agency. Agency is a relationship to which both the principle and agent must agree; it can't be created unilaterally.

If I by a new .380 because I know Steve is a collector of .380s, and my intent at the time of transfer is to sell it to Steve, or trade it for a .22 in Steve's collection, I am not Steve's agent. I am buying it so that I can possess and own it for my own benefit, a sale or trade.

When I present it to Steve and Steve says, "I've had it with .380s. 44 rimfire is the wave of the future", Steve hasn't broken any arrangement, understanding or agreement we had. He owes me nothing because we are not agent and principle.

If Steve and I have an agreement, things change. If Steve says "Zuk, here are $500. Please go to the show today and buy me A, B or C, and have it in my office by 9am on Monday", and I accept those terms, I have obligations to Steve. If I use his money to buy not A, B or C, but Q, I have breached my duty. If I buy A, but show up on Monday and tell Steve that I am keeping A, I have breached my duty.

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Furthur, the sixth example Frank gave fits aarondhgraham transaction perfectly:

Tom, if you review AHG's post, you will see that he does not state any understanding between he and his "lady friend". A purely subjective understanding of an individual doesn't create agency.

[boatdoc173]

I was told several time that I MUST fillo ut the forms a s if I am buying the gun for me and then I can do as I wish( ?#! is are you buying the gun for yourself). if you do anything else--in OBamanation 2016 you are considered a straw buyer!

[steve4102]

Only one little problem with your conclusion......aarondhgraham did have a specific client in mind.

aarondhgraham's original post,

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,
So I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun.

I guess we should ask aarondhgraham for clarification on the above statement.

Was his lady friend going to be the recipient of the trade and the trade was prearranged, or did he just want her opinion of the gun itself?

He did not actually come out and say that his lady friend was who he was trading with, although it sure seems possible with the way he worded it, it also seems possible that she was not.

[zukiphile]

I was told several time that I MUST fillo ut the forms a s if I am buying the gun for me and then I can do as I wish( ?#! is are you buying the gun for yourself). if you do anything else--in OBamanation 2016 you are considered a straw buyer!

That's not new.

If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours.

If you fill out the paper and explain that you aren't buying it, Zuk is, but he isn't here right now, then the FFL should refuse to sell it to you. If Zuk wants to buy, he can, but he has to be there to sign the form anyway, so why wouldn't he be there?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by steve

I guess we should ask aarondhgraham for clarification on the above statement.

I would not encourage that.

Originally Posted by steve

Was his lady friend going to be the recipient of the trade and the trade was prearranged, or did he just want her opinion of the gun itself?

He did not actually come out and say that his lady friend was who he was trading with, although it sure seems possible with the way he worded it, it also seems possible that she was not.

Indeed. This suggests that the conclusion that aarondhgraham was an agent for Lady Friend was hasty.

[chimo]

Bottom line is aarondhgraham lied on the 4473.......it's a straw sale.

Bottom line is that you don't know what you are talking about, despite multiple people attempting to save you from yourself.

Be bought a firearm with his own money...it's his, his intent after that is his own business.

[steve4102]

Be bought a firearm with his own money...it's his, his intent after that is his own business.

Not exactly, Intent before the purchase is Key.

[NJgunowner]

Oui, there's a lot of people on here who could end up on the wrong side of the law... I'm sure that people convicted of straw purchases have made many of these same arguments in court.

[steve4102]

there's a lot of people on here who could end up on the wrong side of the law.

Please explain?

[chimo]

Not exactly, Intent before the purchase is Key.

That is thought police hogwash. Who are you to establish intent?

If they buyer expresses an intent to act as an agent for another person...yes it is probably a straw man.

If the buyer expresses an intent to sell or trade the firearm to some unspecified party at some unspecified future time...that is not a straw man.

If the buyer expresses an intent to gift the firearm to some other party...that also is not a strawman.

[zukiphile]

That is thought police hogwash. Who are you to establish intent?

If they buyer expresses an intent to act as an agent for another person...yes it is probably a straw man.

While intent may play a role, and an individual may express an intent, neither the intent nor its expression is central to a sale being a straw sale, i.e. one to an agent rather than the actual buyer.

If Zuk decides to be Chimo's agent pursuant to their agreement and Zuk poses as the buyer to an FFL, even if Zuk never expresses to the FFL his intent to act as Chimo's agent, the sale still involves a misrepresentation of the identity of the true buyer.

Timing, before or after the FFL transfer, is key. If Zuk decides to sell to Chimo after the FFL transfer, there can't have been an agency relationship at the time of the FFL transfer, so Zuk could not have fraudulently concealed such a relationship.

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile ....Tom, if you review AHG's post, you will see that he does not state any understanding between he and his "lady friend". A purely subjective understanding of an individual doesn't create agency.

Horsehockey.......he stated his intention to the store clerk with her standing right beside him.

zukiphile .....If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours.

No, it isn't.
You keep quoting Abramski, but fail to realize what he was convicted of.

Federal law allows anyone to purchase a firearm as a genuine GIFT. Your statement above is misleading at best, an invitation to handcuffs at worst. NO ONE can buy a firearm for someone else with the expectation that they will be reimbursed.

chimo

Bottom line is that you don't know what you are talking about, despite multiple people attempting to save you from yourself.

Really?
Not only is your reading comprehension at question, so is your mathematical skills. At last count only zukiphile seems to have attempted any disagreement.

Bottom line is, several licensed dealers are in this thread and every single one has agreed with me. Go get your FFL, start reading you some ATF regs and get back to us.

Be bought a firearm with his own money...it's his, his intent after that is his own business.

See........here's where you lost the plot, if you ever understood it in the first place, aarondhgraham stated in his first post that he had intended from the beginning to acquire the firearm with the specific intention of trading it IMMEDIATELY to a third party (his lady friend)....he even took her to the gun store to examine the pistol and for her approval.

chimo

.
That is thought police hogwash. Who are you to establish intent?

For one, I'm a licensed gun dealer. If I suspect a straw sale I am required to cancel the transaction.

How do I become suspicious? Well, the actions and comments made by the buyer are pretty telling as to intent. aarondhgraham's intent is pretty darn obvious.

While I find your "thought police" comment hysterically funny, I also believe it shows your naiveté in regards to criminal law.

If they buyer expresses an intent to act as an agent for another person...yes it is probably a straw man..

Nothing in Federal law or ATF regulations requires a buyer to express an intent to act as a agent for another person. The simple act of purchasing the firearm on behalf of another person is a straw sale (with the sole exception of a gift).

If the buyer expresses an intent to sell or trade the firearm to some unspecified party at some unspecified future time...that is not a straw man

If you had read a shred of aarondhgrahams post you would know the answers to those "ifs".

If the buyer expresses an intent to gift the firearm to some other party...that also is not a strawman.

No kidding.
At no point was "gifting" mentioned by aarondhgraham...........but he DID specifically mention "trading".

[Slamfire]

I'm sure that people convicted of straw purchases have made many of these same arguments in court.

I believe you are right. Gun buyers make stupid statements to Gun Dealers. At one dealer, the guy behind the counter had heard buyers tell him they were going to buy this gun so they could go kill someone. Obviously, the sale did not go through!

In this current climate, I would not fault a single gun dealer who turned down a buyer who said "this is a gift for XXXX". The dealer has a lot more liability than the buyer, and who knows if the buyer is actually an anti gun journalist trying to create a story, or a BATF plant. What we do know, any gun buyer telling the dealer that this gun is not for them, but a gift for "XXXX" is a FOOL and I would not accept the future liability of selling a gun to a fool. The fool may be gifting the gun to a felon, their druggie son or daughter, or a future rampage shooter. When the fool is interviewed by Police, after said druggie relative robs and murders someone with that gun, the fool will tell the police "but I told the dealer it was a gift"! If you have not dealt with enough fools, let me reassure all, fools are never responsible for their foolish actions. They will do everything possible to shift responsibility to someone, anyone, else.

Because gun owners are not going to the polls with a vengeance, and not voting out anti gun politicians, instead letting anti gunners vote in anti gun politicians, the day will come, when you cannot gift a firearm to a relative, spouse, etc, without the gift receiver undergoing a back ground check.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Horsehockey.......he stated his intention to the store clerk with her standing right beside him.

And what intent did he state?

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,

Above, you have assumed for the convenience of your conclusion both that the lady friend is the intended transferee and that they have come to agreement on an agency relationship before the FFL transfer.

Neither is stated in his post. See now?

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

.

No, it isn't.
You keep quoting Abramski, but fail to realize what he was convicted of.

Tom, I haven't kept quoting Abramski. I quoted it for you once. I haven't failed to realize what "he was convicted of". I read the case.

Is it possible that your sense that others need to read more is projection?

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Federal law allows anyone to purchase a firearm as a genuine GIFT. Your statement above is misleading at best, an invitation to handcuffs at worst. NO ONE can buy a firearm for someone else with the expectation that they will be reimbursed.

That is incorrect. One who buys a firearm expecting to sell it to another in the future and who expects re-imbursement on sale does what every second hand seller does.

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Not only is your reading comprehension at question, so is your mathematical skills. At last count only zukiphile seems to have attempted any disagreement.

Bottom line is, several licensed dealers are in this thread and every single one has agreed with me. Go get your FFL, start reading you some ATF regs and get back to us.

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Clear reasoning will not incorporate it.

An appeal to authority is also a fallacy, though simple federal firearm licensing isn't a stand in for authority to construe code or caselaw.

Note that while you chide others to read, your count above may be off a bit.

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Nothing in Federal law or ATF regulations requires a buyer to express an intent to act as a agent for another person. The simple act of purchasing the firearm on behalf of another person is a straw sale (with the sole exception of a gift).

Your first sentence is correct if you mean it from the vantage point of the FFL; a buyer need not express fraudulent intent to the ffl.

Your second sentence is ambiguous. If "on behalf of" means according to an agreement between agent and principle, you are correct.

FFL or not, caution is often a virtue; if you exhibit that caution in your sales that's great. A more cautious approach to evaluating the legality of a transaction from a single online post might have saved you from jumping to conclusions about facts not available to you. It might also restrain you from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you "needs to read".

[dogtown tom]

Above, you have assumed for the convenience of your conclusion both that the lady friend is the intended transferee and that they have come to agreement on an agency relationship before the FFL transfer.

Neither is stated in his post. See now?

How convenient you "forgot" to include the entire conversation that aarondhgraham had with the clerk:

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,
So I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun.

The guy behind the counter looked a bit concerned,,,
He asked me who was going to own the gun.

So I told him I was buying the gun myself,,,
But was immediately going to trade it.

He stated that he intended to buy the gun and immediately trade it to his lady friend. It a straw sale. He lied on the 4473. It's a felony.

Stop being obtuse.

Tom, I haven't kept quoting Abramski. I quoted it for you once. I haven't failed to realize what "he was convicted of". I read the case.

Is it possible that your sense that others need to read more is projection?

Abramski was convicted for lying on the 4473. He answered that he was the actual buyer/transferee........he was not. It is the same situation as aarondhgraham except that his lady friend is trading him instead of writing a check.

Quote:

That is incorrect. One who buys a firearm expecting to sell it to another in the future and who expects re-imbursement on sale does what every second hand seller does.

Oh good grief......read the instructions on the 4473 and tell me what exception there is other than giving a gun as a gift?

What part of Question 11a do you not understand?

When you write: "If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours."......you are factually incorrect.
If the USSC agreed Mr. Abramski would be a free man, he is not.

Quote:

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Clear reasoning will not incorporate it.

I wasn't making an appeal to popularity, he was....I was correcting his math error.

An appeal to authority is also a fallacy, though simple federal firearm licensing isn't a stand in for authority to construe code or caselaw.

What "authority"? I haven't quoted or referred to anyone in authority....that would be ATF. What I did do was point out the opinions of other FFL's who have commented in this thread. Don't you feel a little nervous that not a single FFL in this thread has agreed with you?

Note that while you chide others to read, your count above may be off a bit.

Nope.
Chimo made the claim, at that point only you were in complete disagreement.
steve4102 actually posted Frank Ettin's examples that make my point.

Quote:

Your first sentence is correct if you mean it from the vantage point of the FFL; a buyer need not express fraudulent intent to the ffl.

Your second sentence is ambiguous. If "on behalf of" means according to an agreement between agent and principle, you are correct.

FFL or not, caution is often a virtue; if you exhibit that caution in your sales that's great. A more cautious approach to evaluating the legality of a transaction from a single online post might have saved you from jumping to conclusions about facts not available to you. It might also restrain you from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you "needs to read".

So.....you agree with me?
By any standard the purchase by aarondhgraham was a straw sale.
You can obfuscate all you want but he was not the actual transferee/buyer.
The instructions on the 4473 say so.
ATF regulations say so.
Federal law says so.

Yet you continue to toss around the concept of "agency" between the purchaser and actual transferee/buyer as if that matters.....it doesn't.

[zukiphile]

You will forgive me for addressing your points out of order; let me know if you think that does your position an injustice.

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Yet you continue to toss around the concept of "agency" between the purchaser and actual transferee/buyer as if that matters.....it doesn't.

If you do not understand that an agency relationship is necessary in order for a straw sale to occur, you can't understand what a straw sale actually is. Reading examples on a form isn't a substitute for understanding the underlying principle.

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

How convenient you "forgot" to include the entire conversation that aarondhgraham had with the clerk:

He stated that he intended to buy the gun and immediately trade it to his lady friend. It a straw sale. He lied on the 4473. It's a felony.

Stop being obtuse.

Emphasis added. I bolded the part that isn't in the text you just quoted. I've underlined the part that is merely your repeated conclusion.

See?

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Abramski was convicted for lying on the 4473. He answered that he was the actual buyer/transferee........he was not. It is the same situation as aarondhgraham except that his lady friend is trading him instead of writing a check.

That is incorrect.

In Abramski, the defendant received payment prior to the transfer, indicating that he and his uncle had already reached a principle-agent agreement. On the other hand, Lady Friend hadn't conducted the trade prior to the FFL transfer.

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Oh good grief......read the instructions on the 4473 and tell me what exception there is other than giving a gun as a gift?

What part of Question 11a do you not understand?

None of it.

There are a number of scenarios not mentioned in your form instructions that are not examples of straw purchases.

Here's one. I buy a rifle because it is a great deal. I know you love rifles and that I will see you in a week. I see you, you love the rifle and sell it to you.

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

What "authority"? I haven't quoted or referred to anyone in authority....that would be ATF. What I did do was point out the opinions of other FFL's who have commented in this thread. Don't you feel a little nervous that not a single FFL in this thread has agreed with you?

No. Holding an FFL doesn't suggest competence to understand the legal issue, as demonstrated by your insistence that agency isn't related pertinent to the issue of a straw purchase.

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

When you write: "If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours."......you are factually incorrect.
If the USSC agreed Mr. Abramski would be a free man, he is not.

Factually incorrect? I don't think you meant that.

As in my prior example, if you want to buy a gun then give or sell it to me, you can. You just aren't able to do it without being the actual purchaser first. Once you are the actual purchaser, you may sell or give it to me.

Abramski was found to have done something different because he had an agency relationship with his uncle. If you want me to direct you to the discussion of that in the decision, I am happy to. However you seem displeased by the time I quoted it for you.

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Nope.
Chimo made the claim, at that point only you were in complete disagreement.
steve4102 actually posted Frank Ettin's examples that make my point.

Tom, you might like to review Steve's posts.

Originally Posted by steve4102

Actually Zukiphile is correct.

Read Frank Ettin's Definitions posted above.

Here it is again.

I am confident that isn't your point.

Originally Posted by tom

So.....you agree with me?
By any standard the purchase by aarondhgraham was a straw sale.
You can obfuscate all you want but he was not the actual transferee/buyer.

No, tom. I don't share your conclusion.

Explaining the role of agency to you isn't obfuscation.