Straw purchase??

[mavracer]

Does it have to be called a straw purchase?

only if you want to use the proper term.

Can you cite some authority for classifying that particular crime as a straw purchase?

How about Webster's Dictionary or any Encyclopedia.
When it comes to definitions I'll take webster's version because a "Straw Purchase" doesn't even have to be guns. you can straw purchase a car.IE you purchase it and finance it through your bank for your buddy cause his credit sucks.It's also used quite often in real estate.

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."

They may not call it one, apparently they might be ignorant.
Just cause the ATF call's a horses tail a leg doesn't mean a horse has 5 legs.

.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by mavracer

only if you want to use the proper term.

Actually, that is not the name of the crime. The crime has no "shorthand" name. The particular crime that Aguila Blanca has referred is properly called simply a violation of 18 USC 922(d), or a conspiracy to violate 18 USC 922(g), or perhaps a violation of 18 USC 922(h), depending on the exact circumstances. When charges are filed, the perpetrator will not be charged with a "straw purchase." He or she will be charged with "doing .....[description of acts]....in violation of [one or more cited statutes]."

[mavracer]

Actually, that is not the name of the crime. The crime has no "shorthand" name.

You lawyers just love to argue. LOL guess I should have been one.

A "straw purchase" or "straw-man purchase" by definition is any purchase where a "Buyer" uses a third party to purchase something from a seller for any reason that the buyer can't do it himself.

A straw purchase is not nesessarily a crime.
If you have me pick you up a pack of smokes because I'm at the store and your not that's by definition a straw purchase.Now that can certianly become a crime if you are under 18.

Therefore any crime involving a third party purchasing a firearm either transfering to a prohibited person or just lying on the form is by definition a straw purchase.

The particular crime that Aguila Blanca has referred is properly called simply a violation of 18 USC 922(d), or a conspiracy to violate 18 USC 922(g), or perhaps a violation of 18 USC 922(h), depending on the exact circumstances.

part of the reason for that is it would not have had to be a "straw purchase" for it to be an illegal act.If for instance said girl friend buys gun legally for herself for protection when BF is in jail. for the argument she can even use his money. when he's released at the point she tranfers the gun to his possesion it becomes a crime.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by mavracer

....A straw purchase is not nesessarily a crime...

If that's your perspective, it's not really germane to the matter under discussion. What the OP is concerned about is whether certain conduct could expose him or his spouse to criminal liability. And the larger question, on this particular board, is whether certain conduct in connection with the purchase, sale or transfer of a gun exposes one or more participants to criminal liability. If you use a definition of "straw purchase' under which the conduct may, or may not, give rise to criminal liability, deciding that something is a straw purchase using your definition doesn't tell us what we want to know.

[Sefner]

Here is a handy ATF cartoon about straw purchases:

http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms...swf/toon4.html

The cartoon says pretty explicitly that it's still a crime if you are buying a handgun for someone else even if that someone else is legally able to own a handgun. This is because, again, the crime is lying on the question that asks if you are the actual purchaser. It then goes on to say it would be legal to buy the gun and then transfer it as a gift, but that's not what we are talking about.

[mavracer]

If that's your perspective, it's not really germane to the matter under discussion.

actually it is quite germane to the matter. since the OPs first question was if it is a straw purchase?
so the gorrect explination of what a straw purchase is would be both pertinent and fitting. then going on to explain that the only straw purchase that the ATF is concerned with is one involving lying on the 4473.

because while your statement is true

deciding that something is a straw purchase using your definition doesn't tell us what we want to know.

deciding that something is a illegal straw purchase of a firearm using your definition tell us exactly what we want to know.

telling someone that only "lying on the 4473" is the definition of a straw purchase is wrong and misleading.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by mavracer

...deciding that something is a illegal straw purchase of a firearm using your definition tell us exactly what we want to know...

Actually, what we really want to know is whether or not it's illegal. It doesn't matter whether it's called a straw purchase or something else as long as we know if the conduct is legal or not.

Originally Posted by mavracer

...telling someone that only "lying on the 4473" is the definition of a straw purchase is wrong and misleading...

[1] Not according to ATF, and it is primarily responsible for enforcing the GCA.

[2] And it's not a matter of lying in general on the 4473, although that's still a crime. It's specifically about lying on the first question on the 4473.

[Mr Lucky]

There are really two very distinct ways that a straw purchase can take place. One way is through a corrupt FFL Dealer or Pawnbroker and the other way is by means of a private transaction by a non licensee and a straw purchaser. A good number of these transactions occur at gun shows, hence the term "gun show loophole" whereby a firearm can be purchased by a non licensee.

Either way, ATF investigations have averaged two years and in the past. An investigation is not normally been initiated as the result of a single illegal transaction. This is not to say that sting operations do not occur.

Recently the ATF has stepped up activity with their operation Gun Runner as a result of the unusually high amount illegal gun trafficking in 4 boarder states adjacent to Mexico. Gun shows in particular have been targeted. It would be unusual if ATF agents were not working almost every gun show in those states.

Using any other definition of the term "straw purchase" or "straw man" than what the Justices Department - BATFE uses as "their" definition is irrelevant to illegal firearms purchases.

ATF investigates only on the basis of what the Justice Department considers to be a "straw purchase". A long running campaign initiated by ATF to inform and educate dealers and customers is called "Don't Lie For the Other Guy". You may have seen the mats or posters in your gun shop. We are required by law to post them.

The FBI through NICS also recently stepped up its effort to better inform dealers and offers free seminars in all states.

When a person is arrested for straw purchases, the charges will be violations of the Federal Gun Control Act and in some states violation of various State firearms statutes in addition to Federal law.

[mavracer]

Actually, what we really want to know is whether or not it's illegal.

and we have yet to read your opinion on the OPs situation until now you have been defending the BATFs definition of "straw purchase"

[1] Not according to ATF, and it is primarily responsible for enforcing the GCA.

[2] And it's not a matter of lying in general on the 4473, although that's still a crime. It's specifically about lying on the first question on the 4473.

yes lying to question 1 on a 4473 is a "straw purchase" just as the FAQ from the atf states and according to my math book 2 is an even number.
however all straw purchases are no more just lying on question 1 of form 4473 than all even numbers are the number 2.

Straw Buyer: In terms of mortgage fraud, an individual who pretends to be a legitimate buyer for a
property but in reality is in collusion with another criminally inclined individual to further a mortgage
scam. The straw buyer often uses fake or stolen identifi cation to prevent being traced.

Car purchase
A straw purchase is not illegal per se in most cases, except as noted below. For example, someone may purchase an automobile for another who, due to poor credit, cannot purchase it themselves. The purchase is not illegal; however most financial institutions (ie Banks) have very strict policies regarding this practice; if the other party defaults on payment, the original purchaser would be liable for the debt even if s/he could not collect the debt and/or repossess the car from the other party

[brickeyee]

Other examples of 'strq purchases' are NOT germaine.

The BAYFE has defined the 'straw purchase' of a firearm as lying on the 4473 to question 1.

While in a more general sense bying a gun for someone else might be called a 'straw purchase,' that is not what BATFE is calling it.

They have defined it as lying on the 4473 to question 1.

While the law uses the 'normal meaning' of words, that is ONLY if the law has NOT defined a different meaning.

The National Firearms Act ("NFA") of '34 uses the language of 'firearms' repeatedly.
It is DEFINED in the act as meaning a machine gun.
For purposes of the NFA, a machine gun IS a firearm (and non-machine guns are NOT firearms).

Other pieces of law have other definitions of their terms.

Under GCA68 muzzle loading guns are also NOT 'firearms' and not subject to the GCA68 rules.


Buying for a prohibited person is a violation of GCA68 period.

Lying on the 4473 is illegal, and BATFE has defined a 'straw purchase' based on lying to question 1.

As far as BATFE, no 4473 means a 'straw purchase' cannot occur.
No one lied about who the 'actual buyer' was (under penalty of perjury no less).


There remain other illegal acts, like selling to a person you have reason to believe is prohibited, or selling to a resident of another state.

If you sell it to Billy and he then gives (sells, lends, etc.) it to Frank the felon , Billy is the one who made an illegal transfer.

Billy never signed anything saying he was the purchaser.

[Frank Ettin]

What does mortgage fraud or buying a car have to do with the transfer of a gun? All we care about in this discussion it buying/selling/transferring guns.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by brickeyee

While in a more general sense bying a gun for someone else might be called a 'straw purchase,' that is not what BATFE is calling it.

They have defined it as lying on the 4473 to question 1.

Then why did they call the Copeland case a straw purchase, when he was not selling as a dealer and there was no 4473 involved?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...pelandCase.pdf

Further, the BATFE has not "defined" straw purchase anywhere. They use the term in their documents but, as fiddletown has pointed out, the term is not part of any law or administrative regulation.

Originally Posted by brickeyee

Lying on the 4473 is illegal, and BATFE has defined a 'straw purchase' based on lying to question 1.

As far as BATFE, no 4473 means a 'straw purchase' cannot occur.
No one lied about who the 'actual buyer' was (under penalty of perjury no less).

Then why, again, did the BATFE use the term in the Copeland case? From the document cited by divil:

Originally Posted by BATFE

SUMMARY OF EVENT:

On January 16, 2010, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives Special agents Shawn Kang and Daniel Jones, assisted by Austin Police Department Detectives John Noetzel and Jon Stephenson, working a Texas Gun Show venue held in the North Austin Event Center (formerly known as the Crockett Center), 10601 North Lamar Blvd, Austin, Texas, observed a straw purchaser, Leonel HUERTA, purchasing a firearm from an unlicensed firearms dealer, Paul CoPELAND. After the purchase, HUERTA handed the firearm to Hipolito AVILES. Subsequently, AVILES was arrested for possession of a firearm by a person who being an alien is iliegally or unlawfully in the United States.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...Then why did they call the Copeland case a straw purchase,...

Then explain the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide and http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms...swf/toon4.html.

The "Copeland" document appears to be an internal ATF report written by one or more investigating agents. In such communications terms of art can sometimes be misused. And in such documents, such misuse is of no consequence because the underlying facts and nature of the apparent violations are spelled out in detail. Thus any "short hand" description becomes surplusage and irrelevant.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

Then explain the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide and http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms...swf/toon4.html.

The BATFE Federal Firearms Regulations Guide? Why do you reference that? The "Regulations" portion of that document reproduces Title 27 CFR Chapter 11, Part 478. First, if you look at the Definitions portion, there is no definition of "straw purchase," "straw purchaser," or "straw man." The terms "straw purchase," "straw purchaser," and "straw man" likewise do not appear in the index.

So then you start looking at those portions of the regulations that actually pertain to transfers.

478.32(a) - (c) ... No mention of straw purchase or straw purchaser.

478.32(d) ... No mention of straw purchase or straw purchaser.

478.99(c) ... No mention of straw purchase or straw purchaser.

So where is this term defined? Answer: It isn't. It is industry jargon, which is used by the BATFE informally to describe certain types of prohibited transfers. I am not a lawyer (and I know you are), but I respectfully stand by my position that saying the only situation that constitutes a straw purchase is a purchase from an FFL and involving falsifying answers on the Form 4473 is to ignore other types of prohibited transfers that the BATFE itself considers to be "straw purchases" (as indicated by the Copeland memo. And since the original question wasn't really intended to spark an argument over the definition but to find out if the proposed transaction is or is not legal, I respectfully suggest that continuing to insist that ONLY transfers involving giving false statements on the 4473 constitute straw purchases ill serves the original poster and the firearms owners community in general.

Here's the link to the 2005 BATFE Guide - it's the most recent edition I could find on-line: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps4...005/p53004.pdf

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...So where is this term defined? Answer: It isn't. It is industry jargon, which is used by the BATFE informally to describe certain types of prohibited transfers...

Which is why one really needs to focus on the actual statutes and the conduct described as unlawful in those statutes.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...but I respectfully stand by my position that saying the only situation that constitutes a straw purchase is a purchase from an FFL and involving falsifying answers on the Form 4473 is to ignore other types of prohibited transfers...

Except that lying on question 1 on the 4473 is the only violation described in public communications by BATF as a straw purchase.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...I respectfully suggest that continuing to insist that ONLY transfers involving giving false statements on the 4473 constitute straw purchases ill serves the original poster and the firearms owners community in general...

Not if we can be clear about what is, or is not, a legal transaction -- no matter what it's called. Not every illegal transaction is a "straw purchase", and what ill serves the firearm community is confusing matters by thinking of every illegal transaction as a straw purchase or getting side tracked by a notion that if it's not a straw purchase it's legal. The GCA and Brady Bill are complex statutes, and there are a whole lot of ways to violate them beside lying on question 1 on a 4473. and not every violation is a "straw purchase."

[JohnKSa]

...but I respectfully stand by my position that saying the only situation that constitutes a straw purchase is a purchase from an FFL and involving falsifying answers on the Form 4473 is to ignore other types of prohibited transfers...

It's not ignoring them, it's just saying that they are prohibited under a different law.

The fact that you can't be ticketed for speeding if you run a red light doesn't mean that anyone is ignoring the violation of running the red light. It just means that running a red light is not a speeding violation. So even though you can't be ticketed for speeding when you run a red light you CAN be (and will be if observed by an LEO) ticketed for running a red light when you run a red light.

[Aguila Blanca]

If I am a prohibited person in a state where face-to-face sales are legal, I can find some private party selling a firearm and I can buy it directly from him, using my own money, and just lie to him and tell him I am not prohibited. Not a straw purchase, but highly unlawful nonetheless.

Or ... I can send my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother over to make the buy for me, using my money. As soon as my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother gets home with the firearm, he/she hands it to me. No 4473, no making of false statements under oath. The original purchase was illegal (I think) because my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother used MY money to make the buy, even though he/she isn't a prohibited person. Subsequently transferring the firearm to me is certainly illegal. Are you all SERIOUSLY saying this isn't a straw purchase?

And then we might have the exact same scenario as directly above, except that I am NOT a prohibited person. Maybe I'm ill, or busy, so I send my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother over with MY money to make the buy for me. Private seller, no 4473 involved. He/she isn't prohibited, I am not prohibited, but he/she used MY money to buy the firearm for me -- not as a gift to me, but acting in my stead using my money. I respectfully submit that if you call your local BATFE field office and ask, they'll tell you this is a straw purchase.

[JohnKSa]

Not a straw purchase, but highly unlawful nonetheless.

Correct and correct. It's unlawful because you are disqualified from owning the firearm. The seller will not be culpable unless he has reason to believe you are disqualified, but you will be in violation of the law.

The original purchase was illegal (I think) because my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother used MY money to make the buy, even though he/she isn't a prohibited person.

The original purchase was not illegal because no laws were broken.

Subsequently transferring the firearm to me is certainly illegal.

That is correct.

Are you all SERIOUSLY saying this isn't a straw purchase?

If the purchaser didn't fill out a 4473 stating that they are the actual purchaser then they haven't broken any laws until they transfer the firearm to you illegally. That transfer is illegal because they know you are a disqualified person.

I respectfully submit that if you call your local BATFE field office and ask, they'll tell you this is a straw purchase.

Unless the gun was purchased from an FFL or the transaction took place across state lines, or the firearm is one that is specially regulated (NFA item) or the purchaser is a disqualified person then the BATF will tell you that they have no jurisdiction because they enforce federal laws and there were no federal laws broken.

A thing is illegal because there are laws against it. A law enforcement organization enforces laws that pertain to its jurisdiction.

If a firearm transaction takes place between a non-dealer seller and a non-dealer purchaser both residing in the same state and the firearm is a legal firearm not specially regulated by federal law and if the purchaser is a qualified person then there are no federal laws broken and therefore the BATF doesn't have jurisdiction.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...I can send my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother over to make the buy for me, using my money. As soon as my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother gets home with the firearm, he/she hands it to me. No 4473, no making of false statements under oath. The original purchase was illegal (I think) because my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother used MY money to make the buy, even though he/she isn't a prohibited person. Subsequently transferring the firearm to me is certainly illegal. Are you all SERIOUSLY saying this isn't a straw purchase?...

It is not a straw purchase as BATF has defined a straw purchase for the public in material published by BATF for public information.

The original purchase might be a violation of 18 USC 922(h) if case law and/or the circumstances would support a finding that the wife/mother/girlfriend/brother was in the employ of the prohibited person for the purposes of acquiring the gun. If not, it's not clear that the original purchase would otherwise violate federal law, at least if everyone is a resident of the same State. In general, the GCA/Brady Bill does not regulate transactions between residents of the same State. If you think it does otherwise violate federal law, please specify the statute violated (don't just call it a straw purchase).

The transfer to the prohibited person would be a violation of federal law, specifically a violation of 18 USC 922(d) and possibly also conspiracy to violate 18 USC 922(g).

It may also violate state law, depending on the State. It doesn't have to be a straw purchase to be illegal.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...And then we might have the exact same scenario as directly above, except that I am NOT a prohibited person. Maybe I'm ill, or busy, so I send my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother over with MY money to make the buy for me. Private seller, no 4473 involved. He/she isn't prohibited, I am not prohibited, but he/she used MY money to buy the firearm for me -- not as a gift to me, but acting in my stead using my money. I respectfully submit that if you call your local BATFE field office and ask, they'll tell you this is a straw purchase...

Whatever some clerk at a BATF office might say on the telephone, the transaction would not be a straw purchase as BATF has defined a straw purchase for the public in material published by BATF for public information.

And do you contend that the described transaction would violate federal law? If so, exactly what provision of federal law has been violated (don't just call it a straw purchase)?

[Mr Lucky]

If I am a prohibited person in a state where face-to-face sales are legal, I can find some private party selling a firearm and I can buy it directly from him, using my own money, and just lie to him and tell him I am not prohibited. Not a straw purchase, but highly unlawful nonetheless.

Correct, The seller is not breaking the law since he does not know or have reason to believe the buyer is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal Law. [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5) 922(d) 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] The Buyer if prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm by any State or Federal law would be in violation of Federal and any applicable State law. [18 U.S.C. 922(g)(n), 27 CFR 478.32] This is not a straw purchase but still illegal activity.

Or ... I can send my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother over to make the buy for me, using my money. As soon as my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother gets home with the firearm, he/she hands it to me. No 4473, no making of false statements under oath. The original purchase was illegal (I think) because my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother used MY money to make the buy, even though he/she isn't a prohibited person. Subsequently transferring the firearm to me is certainly illegal. Are you all SERIOUSLY saying this isn't a straw purchase?

The true owner of the firearm is the person who fills out part A of ATF form 4473 and signs it. The firearm serial number and the NICS background check is made using that persons identification. The fact the You give a person money does not constitute a crime. The person could deposit it in the bank or do what they wish with the money. The true purchaser can also loan "his" firearm to you to use for an undetermined amount of time if you are not prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm. The true purchaser retains ownership of the firearm so this is not an example of a "straw purchase."

And then we might have the exact same scenario as directly above, except that I am NOT a prohibited person. Maybe I'm ill, or busy, so I send my wife/mother/girlfriend/brother over with MY money to make the buy for me. Private seller, no 4473 involved. He/she isn't prohibited, I am not prohibited, but he/she used MY money to buy the firearm for me -- not as a gift to me, but acting in my stead using my money. I respectfully submit that if you call your local BATFE field office and ask, they'll tell you this is a straw purchase.

Again, the person legally buying the firearm is the true purchaser and owner of the firearm. As long as the true purchaser retains ownership of the firearm this would not be a straw purchase. A private transfer or loan of the firearm at an unspecified later date would not be illegal provided that each party involved in the private transfer are not prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm. This also would not be an example of a "straw purchase."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

Whatever some clerk at a BATF office might say on the telephone, the transaction would not be a straw purchase as BATF has defined a straw purchase for the public in material published by BATF for public information.

And do you contend that the described transaction would violate federal law? If so, exactly what provision of federal law has been violated (don't just call it a straw purchase)?

That's the problem. I can't find any law that prohibits it, but I know for a fact that any FFL who sees Person A looking at a gun with great interest, then Person B reaches into his pocket/her purse for a roll of cash and says "We'll take it" will end the transaction right there. The BATFE has certainly convinced the FFLs that it's illegal.

There have been multiple instances reported on various gun boards wherein husbands and wives have been tossed out of gun shops because the hubby, as the resident expert, did most of the tire kicking in picking out a gun for the wife, then when the wife wanted to buy it the FFL decided it was a straw purchase (there's that term again) and refused to deal with them.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...I can't find any law that prohibits it, but I know for a fact that any FFL who sees Person A looking at a gun with great interest, then Person B reaches into his pocket/her purse for a roll of cash and says "We'll take it" will end the transaction right there...

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...There have been multiple instances reported on various gun boards wherein husbands and wives have been tossed out of gun shops...

Sure -- FFLs and gun shops -- where 4473s get filled out. Your hypothetical was about a private sale -- no FFL or gun shop. There are all sorts of ways the BATF can make life miserable for a federally licensed dealer who participates in a skanky deal if the BATF can show he knew or had reason to believe that something wasn't kosher.

[Mr Lucky]

That's the problem. I can't find any law that prohibits it, but I know for a fact that any FFL who sees Person A looking at a gun with great interest, then Person B reaches into his pocket/her purse for a roll of cash and says "We'll take it" will end the transaction right there. The BATFE has certainly convinced the FFLs that it's illegal.

Not true. You have some misconception about what is and is not legal.

1. An FFL can refuse business to anyone at their sole discretion for any reason provided it is not in violation of their Constitutional civil rights.

2. Where the money comes from is not a legal issue and does not constitute an illegal purchase. A person could buy a firearm by cash from another persons wallet, purse or credit card. Often married people have joint checking accounts and a single credit card account with two or more names on the cards.

3. What counts is who is buying the gun. The person who fills out ATF form 4473, presents their identification, signs form 4473, has his background check run by the FFL is the TRUE purchaser and owner of the firearm.

[JohnKSa]

That's the problem. I can't find any law that prohibits it, but I know for a fact that any FFL who sees Person A looking at a gun with great interest, then Person B reaches into his pocket/her purse for a roll of cash and says "We'll take it" will end the transaction right there. The BATFE has certainly convinced the FFLs that it's illegal.

It IS illegal for the FFL and for those who choose to purchase from an FFL.

The licensing scheme was pure genius by the antigunners. They couldn't simply extend federal juridiction because they wanted to, but they COULD create a new group of people who were, BY CHOICE, bound to follow the new laws. Because an FFL has CHOSEN to have a federally issued license he is bound by laws that do not apply to people who do not have the license. He is also exempted from some other laws as well but that's another story.

An FFL can't sell handgun ammunition to someone under 21. You can as long as your state laws don't prohibit it.

An FFL can't sell a handgun to someone under 21. You can as long as your state laws don't prohibit it.

An FFL can't sell a firearm without having someone fill out a 4473. You can as long as your state laws don't prohibit it.

Because you aren't bound by the law requiring a 4473 for all transactions like an FFL IS, you can legally buy and sell firearms from non-dealers with no 4473 involved. Since you don't have to use 4473s for some of your purchases, in those cases you also aren't bound by any of the laws that apply specifically to filling out a 4473.

Since the infraction we are discussing is specifically defined as answering a particular question on a 4473 with false information then you can not be charged with violating that law if you engage in a transaction that does not require/involve a 4473. You may certainly be charged with other infractions if you violate other laws, but that's a separate issue.

[Mr Lucky]

Quote:
That's the problem. I can't find any law that prohibits it, but I know for a fact that any FFL who sees Person A looking at a gun with great interest, then Person B reaches into his pocket/her purse for a roll of cash and says "We'll take it" will end the transaction right there. The BATFE has certainly convinced the FFLs that it's illegal.

It IS illegal for the FFL and for those who choose to purchase from an FFL.

This is absolutely NOT true. See item 2. of my post above.

The operative words in the quote above are "We'll take it"
With the exception of NFA class III items purchased by a corporation, all small arms regulated by Federal law under the GCA can only have ONE owner. That is the person who fills out ATF form 4473, identifies himself to the FFL and has his background checked by NISC or a POA in certain states. The source of the money to pay for the gun is completely immaterial.

Here is a good example: We sell firearms on-line. We accept credit cards from any individual with a valid and verifiable credit card. By law we can not ship a firearm directly to a non licensee.

We send the firearm to the on-line buyer's preferred FFL (C&R's excepted). We require a copy of the FFL's license certificate and verify it before we ship.

Once the firearm arrives at the FFL, A Person comes to the FFL for an over the counter transaction. At this time That person's identification is checked, ATF Form 4473 Part A is completed by that person in the presence of the FFL or his trained employee. An NICS background check is then made. If NICS returns a "proceed," That person becomes the "true" and legal owner. NO money except for a transfer fee is paid by the purchaser since it has already been paid for by credit card to the original FFL dealer.

You could have your hands full of packages and ask your kid or you spouse or friend to carry the gun out of the store and it would still not be an illegal transaction or a "straw purchase" on the part of the FFL or the "true" owner.

What the "true" owner does with the gun at a later time IS subject to applicable Federal and state laws.