Sen. Royce West Sets a Trap for Law-Abiding Gun Owners

[Ruark]

But I can't buy him one as a gift. I have to take him to the dealer, pay for it, and then let him fill out the 4473. Kind of hard to put that under the Christmas tree.

I don't follow. It is perfectly legal in Texas to give a gun to a non-prohibited person as a gift. I'm not aware that you have to personally own the gun a certain amount of time beforehand, i.e. there's no legal difference between giving someone a gun you've had for 5 years or 5 days. You can just buy the gun for yourself, then later, give it to the person.

If I'm off track here, by all means say so, but I don't think I am.

[Mxrdad]

You are on track (I think). Its only an issue if this Bill is passed, I think.

[Alf]

You're right Ruark. What's not allowed under current law is for me to give my neighbor money to buy a gun for me.

[Mxrdad]

Ah, Sorry for the confusion. I was thinking about the gift thingy. If I purchase a gun today and want to gift it to my son for Christmas, no problem and no paperwork needed. I think this bill would change that if I'm understanding it correctly.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Don't confuse SB206 with federal law as interpreted by the SCOTUS in Abramski. The defeat of SB206 will not change the impact of Abramski. It will keep Texas from adopting an unnecessary duplication of offenses. More importantly, it will keep Texas from adopting federal law which would give a Texas prosecutor the ability to file charges against a person buying a gun as a gift.

I cannot tell anyone how to buy a gun to be given as a gift, without possibly violating federal law. Currently, the BATFE takes the position that is fine and this is expressly stated in the BATFE instructions for Question 11a. However, there are two problems. First, the BATFE instructions do not change federal law. Secondly, the BATFE can can change that instruction at any time. Anyone relying upon the BATFE instructions for Question 11a has a strong claim that they did not intentionally falsify a government document. That's probably how things would work out in terms of a federal prosecutor's decision to prosecute or not, a judge's ruling on a motion to dismiss charges, and a jury's decision on the guilt question. Note I'm talking about a probability, not a guarantee. There's no telling with a state prosecutor would do if SB206 passes. That's why I wrote that SB206 is not only unnecessary, but dangerous as well.

I would not attempt to tell someone if they can buy a gun as a gift, how to go about it, or how long they must own the gun before they could safely give it as a gift. I won't even tell people what I would do if I wanted to gift a gun because I don't want anyone to rely upon my decision.

Chas.

[Mxrdad]

I get the gist of it, don't buy a gun and gift/give it to someone not legally allowed to purchase the gun themselves. But a gift to a family member, even if they have LTC is still a no-no?

[bmwrdr]

You are on track (I think). Its only an issue if this Bill is passed, I think.

That is my understanding of the current law as well.

[rotor]

I get the gist of it, don't buy a gun and gift/give it to someone not legally allowed to purchase the gun themselves. But a gift to a family member, even if they have LTC is still a no-no?

I don't understand quite why you are saying this. If you are in Texas and are gifting the firearm to a Texas resident that can legally own a gun you can gift it to them. In other states refer to
http://www.nssfblog.com/giving-a-firear ... from-nssf/

[Mxrdad]

Sorry, sometimes I dont communicate well with my fingers but I see now. I was trying to see if the recipient needed an LTC or not.

[Jusme]

I purchased my son his Eagle Scout edition Henry lever action 22 rifle. Everyone from the owner of Henry rifles to the FFL dealer knew that it was to be a gift. I would be very happy to allow the BATFE to face the bad publicity, they would get to prosecute me. It would be worth every penny I would have to spend to take the case all the way to SCOTUS. I also think there would be several attorneys willing to take the case pro Bono.
I think with the election of Trump, these type of prosecutions will be few and far between now, and I hope that the,US Congress will work to eliminate this type of harassment altogether.JMHO

[ScottDLS]

Bad cases and bad facts make bad "case" law. SCOTUS really hosed this one in Abramski.. My understanding of the back story is the Feds really wanted to "get" him because they were pretty sure robbed the bank. So when they executed the warrant and found no evidence they did what the government will always do when they want to "get" you, they found the gun purchase receipt and made up their wacky "straw purchase" case. The unsympathetic defendant then took this all the way to the Supreme Court so we could get an idiotic decision completely contrary to the statute. There are a few differences in the facts between this case and a "gift" of a firearm, but technically not in the legal decision.

I'm going to chalk this one up there next to GFSZA (had to get that in there ) and make an effort not to do things that could get me convicted of violating this law.

[E.Marquez]

I get the gist of it, don't buy a gun and gift/give it to someone not legally allowed to purchase the gun themselves. But a gift to a family member, even if they have LTC is still a no-no?

I don't understand quite why you are saying this. If you are in Texas and are gifting the firearm to a Texas resident that can legally own a gun you can gift it to them. In other states refer to
http://www.nssfblog.com/giving-a-firear ... from-nssf/

Your referencing STATE law.
The issue is FEDERAL law and the SCOTUS decision in Abramski... which in laymen terms seems to state what is legal in TX state law, which is also what ATF says is fine in question 11a runs afoul of the Abramski decision.....which "Could" ..."Might" influence a prosecutors decision to charge you with a straw purchase.

[dlh]

Parsing and nuancing the Abramski case is great fun--at least for some of us.

Is there anything about the underlying federal statute that would prohibit the gift scenario to a "legal" third party? Remember, Abramski did not involve a gift--it was an actual "hidden" purchase by a third party.

Secondly, regarding the "legal" third party--as discussed somewhat above, what if I wanted to buy a bolt-action .22 rifle for my son who is 10 years old and gift it to him? He would not be an otherwise "legal" third party so would that even matter in a gift scenario? Would that be a violation under federal law since my 10 year old son could not purchase the rifle himself from an FFL dealer?

Not aware of any case law since Abramski further clarifying this mess.

Other thoughts are always welcome.

[Deltaboy]

The fine people of Dallas need vote mr West out office.