The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 22, 2014, 10:07 AM   #1
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
Straw Purchase?

Giving $money$ upfront to another for the Purchase of a firearm is a Straw Purchase, yes?

Would this not be considered a "Straw" as the money was fronted to NJ for the sole purpose to buy Firearms?

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...l#incart_river

There's little harm in the bill our state Assembly just passed, to expand gun buyback programs across New Jersey. It comes at no cost to the taxpayers. It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations.
steve4102 is offline  
Old September 22, 2014, 10:53 AM   #2
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
Yep you be right. What does NJ have to do with this??????
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old September 22, 2014, 11:02 AM   #3
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
Part of me says let them have their silly buy-back programs. At least as long as it doesn't cost more tax dollars. I have a broken, cheap Spanish-made copy of a S&W breaktop revolver that I'll get something for.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old September 22, 2014, 11:22 AM   #4
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102
Giving $money$ upfront to another for the Purchase of a firearm is a Straw Purchase, yes?
Ah, no. At least not necessarily.

For the purposes of federal law, when buying a gun from an FFL, a straw purchase is lying on the 4473 about who the actual transferee is. Things like asking someone to buy a gun for you and giving him or promising him the money are part of determining who, in the contemplation of the law, the actual transferee is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102
...Would this not be considered a "Straw" as the money was fronted to NJ for the sole purpose to buy Firearms?...
So no, it would not.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 22, 2014, 12:18 PM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations.
While the process seems to have similar contours to a straw purchase, I doubt one could convince a court to see it that way.

I would be very leery of someone who wants onerous legislation passed, and who can only offer this as a justification:

Quote:
And who knows? It may even do some good.
Banning demonstrations within the city limits might reduce litter. Who knows? Allowing warrantless searches might reduce terrorism. Who knows? It may even do some good!

The rest of the article is comprised of statistics without attribution and "research" from Mother Jones, all presented in an attempt to get us to emulate Australia's 1997 agreement. No thanks.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 22, 2014, 07:25 PM   #6
shooterdownunder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Location: sydney
Posts: 135
Oh FFS.

I'm getting really sick of all these articles citing us as the perfect example of gun control. The buybacks did not work.

We've had 3 "mass" shootings since then plus weekly drive bys and gang shootings in melbourne and western sydney. We now have MORE guns in private homes than before port arthur and noone else has gone postal.

p.s. Martin Bryant stole the guns he used. He was not eligible to own a firearm in the first place. So please stop using us as an example.
pps.
No one has proposed banning matches and lighters after these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers...sing_home_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downunder_Hostel_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childer...rs_Hostel_fire
shooterdownunder is offline  
Old September 23, 2014, 12:09 PM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
I'm getting really sick of all these articles citing us as the perfect example of gun control.
Quote:
So please stop using us as an example.
If you want that to stop, you're posting to the wrong people.

Of course, if you do ask the people doing it, they won't listen.

I don't doubt you for a minute about what has, and is happening there. Personally, I'm long fed up with those people claiming how I (US) should have the gun control of Britain, Australia, or any other place they pick to hold up as a shining example of their beliefs.

I can only imagine how much it must burn the good people who live in those places to be used as examples.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 23, 2014, 01:50 PM   #8
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
Hey Shooterdownunder can you link a news report to those shootings you mentioned? A lot of folks who point to your neck of the woods almost invariably include something about not having a mass shooting since.
JimDandy is offline  
Old September 23, 2014, 11:04 PM   #9
shooterdownunder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Location: sydney
Posts: 135
Sorry Jim it was my mistake, there have been two mass shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

as mentioned though random shootings are happening every week.

44 AMP. My thoughts may considered unpopular both here at home and on this forum but I believe we should have the gun control laws of new zealand. They require licencing like we do but once you have the licence there is little restriction on what you may own with the exception of explosives and full automatics.

Last edited by shooterdownunder; September 23, 2014 at 11:13 PM.
shooterdownunder is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 07:11 AM   #10
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
Back to the OP's original question:

Quote:
Giving $money$ upfront to another for the Purchase of a firearm is a Straw Purchase, yes?
The answer is NO. Giving someone money to purchase a firearm for the giver is a straw purchase. In the case of donating money to LEOs to buyback, the giver is not expecting LEOs to give them the firearms. It is perfectly legal to give someone money to purchase a firearm that is to be owned by the purchaser.
Doyle is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 10:19 AM   #11
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
It is perfectly legal to give someone money to purchase a firearm that is to be owned by the purchaser.
Absolutely, provided that no one considers the person putting up the money to be the purchaser...(people have made the argument that the person putting up the money is the real purchaser, and its the "strawman" who conducts the transaction, fills out the forms, etc.)

Its a potentially ugly can of worms, and one that in some cases is only decided in court.

One way to avoid this issue is simply to buy the firearm yourself, and then give it to whom you wish, as a gift. It is still legal to do that, provided both you and the recipient are both legal to own the firearm.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 10:34 AM   #12
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
...Absolutely, provided that no one considers the person putting up the money to be the purchaser...(people have made the argument that the person putting up the money is the real purchaser, and its the "strawman" who conducts the transaction, fills out the forms, etc.)...
And the distinction is who winds up with the gun.

If the guy putting up the money winds up with the gun (by prior arrangement), he's the actual purchaser.

If the guy taking the money and buying the gun is expected to keep the gun, he is the actual purchaser.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 10:37 AM   #13
MtnCreek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2010
Posts: 176
Are firearms transfers in NJ required to go through an FFL? The firearms are not being seized or taken as evidence in a criminal case. Can a city, county or state bypass requirements (assumed) that the transfer be conducted through an FFL?
MtnCreek is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 10:51 AM   #14
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnCreek
Are firearms transfers in NJ required to go through an FFL? The firearms are not being seized or taken as evidence in a criminal case. Can a city, county or state bypass requirements (assumed) that the transfer be conducted through an FFL?
  1. Unless there is a specific state law requirement that gun transfers go through an FFL, under federal the requirement applies only to interstate transfers.

  2. If there is a state law requirement, the application of that requirement will be defined by the state law. There are frequently limitations and exceptions to such requirements.

  3. It's common for a law enforcement agency to be empowered to take possession of a gun under a wide variety of circumstances. Police frequently take custody of guns belonging to someone who might become subject to some disqualification from possessing them, and sometimes that disqualification is temporary.

  4. In general police may also accept guns from folks who don't want them anymore -- the guns simply get turned-in.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 24, 2014, 11:26 AM   #15
MtnCreek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2010
Posts: 176
Exercised my google-fu.

Looks like LE is not subject to FID card requirement to take possession.

13:54-1.3

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf...tle13-ch54.pdf
MtnCreek is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09115 seconds with 10 queries