May 30, 2017, 12:48 AM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Straw Purchase?
Again, sorry.
Is there actual Federal law making it illegal to purchase a firearm on behalf of another? Or is the official violation, lying on a federal Form (4473)? The reason I ask, is there is a new bill (no text yet) being proposed in the Senate that would make "straw" purchases illegal. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...nate-bill/1185 Quote:
|
|
May 30, 2017, 01:40 AM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,971
|
Quote:
When performing a transaction between two private parties who are residents of the same state there is no 4473 and therefore it is not possible to commit the crime of a straw purchase. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean there are NO crimes which could be committed. For example, you could legally buy a gun from a non-FFL who is also a resident of your state on behalf of a third party. You could take the third party's money and buy the gun and deliver the gun to that person legally. BUT, if you know or have reason to believe that person is a prohibited person then you have committed a crime. NOT the crime of a straw purchase, but the crime of delivering a firearm to a prohibited person. Although the text of this bill is not yet available, it appears that Leahy has introduced similar bills in the past (see the link below) with Collins as a cosponsor. It seems likely that this is a repeat. https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/-...ms-trafficking
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
May 30, 2017, 09:35 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,310
|
Thank you JohnKSa for posting the link to Senator Leahy's web page. I did go to the link and read the article there. I was a little surprised at his statement:
Quote:
I posted the quote just for discussion purposes. I am aware of the question you have to answer at the dealer about if the gun is for your own use. |
|
May 30, 2017, 01:39 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
IMHO in the most technical and literal sense, the quote that "...no law that explicitly makes straw purchasing a crime..." IS TRUE, but the key word is "explicitly." In Abramski v. United States—discussed in the linked thread and several others—the SCOTUS made it quite clear that straw purchasing IS a crime, albeit implicitly so.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; May 30, 2017 at 01:51 PM. Reason: typo, reword |
|
May 30, 2017, 01:50 PM | #5 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
It will be interesting to see the proposed text to see how they define "trafficking."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
May 30, 2017, 02:01 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,310
|
Thank you Carguychris.
Edited to add: Thank you Frank Ettin. Last edited by DaleA; May 30, 2017 at 02:30 PM. Reason: I didn't see Frank Ettin post because slow typing |
June 1, 2017, 04:40 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
The text of the bill has been published.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/1185/text So, help me out here. Quote:
Part (2), it will be a violation to purchase a firearm from a non-FFL or face-to face on behalf of a prohibited person. Yes? Does this mean that a Face-to-face transaction on behalf of another is not a violation as long as the final recipient is NOT a prohibited person?? Last edited by steve4102; June 1, 2017 at 04:49 AM. |
|
June 1, 2017, 06:26 AM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
Quote:
If my wife or daughter requests a Kel-Tec .380 pistol for Christmas and I buy it for her as a gift -- would I be in violation of this proposed law? |
|
June 1, 2017, 06:51 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Won't happen. From the sponsoring senator, to the presidents unlikelyness to sign it, won't happen.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
June 1, 2017, 07:08 AM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 6, 2015
Location: WI & UP
Posts: 284
|
Aquila, this has crossed my mind. I live in a state that requires no documentation on private sales. So if I got them one, I could give it to them. But technically I would be buying it for someone else.
If the other person is legal to own a gun, and government keeps their nose out of private sales, than I am not going to worry about it, if the time ever comes, or just have them go in, if it works out. |
June 1, 2017, 07:34 AM | #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 1, 2017, 08:34 AM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: November 19, 2016
Posts: 19
|
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...ews/170419171/
updated: 4/14/2017 4:48 PM Mount Prospect woman gets probation for illegal gun sales Barbara Vitello A Mount Prospect woman pleaded guilty to selling guns illegally and was sentenced to probation. Simone Mousheh, 23, pleaded guilty Thursday to the illegal transfer of firearms in exchange for 12 months probation and 15 days in the Cook County sheriff's work alternative program, according to court records. S.W.A.P. allows judges to sentence nonviolent offenders to manual labor in lieu of jail time. She was also ordered to pay $679 in fines. According to published reports, Mousheh purchased a .40-caliber gun legally then reported it stolen. Police recovered the gun from a Chicago juvenile. During a six-month period, authorities said, Mousheh purchased four weapons for $600 each and sold two to a Hoffman Estates man with Chicago gang ties. |
June 1, 2017, 03:02 PM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I think it's a poorly thought out bill and really doesn't add anything meaningful to existing law. It also muddies the issue of legally buying a gun as a gift for someone as alluded to by Aguila Blanca (although it appears to recognize a gift as an exception).
As far as not adding anything to existing law --
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
June 2, 2017, 03:10 AM | #14 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 2, 2017, 07:15 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Frank, isn't the main provision making it a crime to purchase a firearm on behalf of another? As of right now, the only crime is lying on a federal form, this would add the act as well as the perjury??
|
June 2, 2017, 10:46 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|