Purchased a gun for a friend

[ScottDLS]

I won the auction and paid for the gun. I'll accept it, take possession and next week give my friend and neighbor a nice gift.

You are truly a good neighbor, sir.

[cyphertext]

I won the auction and paid for the gun. I'll accept it, take possession and next week give my friend and neighbor a nice gift.

This is legal, as long as the neighbor is not going to give you the money to cover the purchase and it is an actual gift...

[Scott B.]

That is the correct way to handle it. The ATF can consider you buying a gun for someone else, even though they are qualified, as a "straw purchase". Realistically, they probably won't, but you should not risk it. When you fill out the 4473 you are signing that you are buying the gun for yourself. ATF considers that lying on the form.

Another question on my part (to go along with my post above). Does the ATF consider the payment for the gun and the transfer paperwork all as part and parcel of a single transaction? Or they viewed as separate events?

Reason I ask is because question 11a of the 4473 states "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Waring: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person...

This is the important part to me ...if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person...

The reason I quote this is because in this situation, if the friend filled out the paperwork, he would check "Yes" in my mind, because he is the actual transferee regardless who paid for it. And at that point no straw sale would (or could) have existed.

Again, using logic it would seem to me that no matter who pays for the gun, so long as the person actually taking possession of it fills out the form, there's no foul. But, I'm sure it's not that simple.

You are correct in the case that the actual recipient fills out the 4473. In the case of an online auction described, the seller really doesn't care who the end buyer is, only his FFL. If you buy a gun at auction and the seller sends it to the FFL, then why would they care who fills out the 4473. The FFL just transfers it to the actual buyer, even if it has a not inside that says for John Doe, instead of Sam Smith. The FFL is legal recipient of the first transfer (from seller) and the actual buyer goes and is the (final) transferee. Nobody cares where he got the money.

Go back and look at the case. The father gave the son the money who purchased at the LE discounted rate and said on his 4473 that he was the actual buyer, then sent the gun to anther FFL cross state lines and the father did another 4473. It was the son they went after, not the father.

That was a straw purchase.

[ScottDLS]

That is the correct way to handle it. The ATF can consider you buying a gun for someone else, even though they are qualified, as a "straw purchase". Realistically, they probably won't, but you should not risk it. When you fill out the 4473 you are signing that you are buying the gun for yourself. ATF considers that lying on the form.

Another question on my part (to go along with my post above). Does the ATF consider the payment for the gun and the transfer paperwork all as part and parcel of a single transaction? Or they viewed as separate events?

Reason I ask is because question 11a of the 4473 states "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Waring: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person...

This is the important part to me ...if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person...

The reason I quote this is because in this situation, if the friend filled out the paperwork, he would check "Yes" in my mind, because he is the actual transferee regardless who paid for it. And at that point no straw sale would (or could) have existed.

Again, using logic it would seem to me that no matter who pays for the gun, so long as the person actually taking possession of it fills out the form, there's no foul. But, I'm sure it's not that simple.

You are correct in the case that the actual recipient fills out the 4473. In the case of an online auction described, the seller really doesn't care who the end buyer is, only his FFL. If you buy a gun at auction and the seller sends it to the FFL, then why would they care who fills out the 4473. The FFL just transfers it to the actual buyer, even if it has a not inside that says for John Doe, instead of Sam Smith. The FFL is legal recipient of the first transfer (from seller) and the actual buyer goes and is the (final) transferee. Nobody cares where he got the money.

Go back and look at the case. The father gave the son the money who purchased at the LE discounted rate and said on his 4473 that he was the actual buyer, then sent the gun to anther FFL cross state lines and the father did another 4473. It was the son they went after, not the father.

That was a straw purchase.

Right, the point was the son was not the actual buyer, but he said he was on the 4473. In the case of the OP you are telling the auction buyer to fill out 4473 at the receiving FFL and then gift it to his friend, even though the friend is going to reimburse him. The ATF position doesn't depend on whether the money was provided in advance or not (though perhaps that may have helped buyer win the case), they are saying if you are buying with the intent to transfer it FOR OTHER THAN A GIFT, then you are lying on the 4473.

[Scott B.]

The buyer does the transfer. Period. You can gift a firearm purchased with your own money. You cannot do a straw purchase, that is using somebody else's money to buy a gun, do the 4473 in your name, then hand the gun over to the party who provided the money.

In the state of Texas, we have no firearms registry, so you can gift a firearm with a smile - as long as you know that person is not prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm and they reside in the same state as you.

Optionally, you can do a 4473 for the firearm and then have the FFL reacquire the firearm from you and do a new 4473 to who you want to gift/sell the firearm. That's what ATF would like to see done nationally, and it's required in Washington and Oregon, it's only voluntary elsewhere.

[Scott B.]

First, do not pay for it under your name.
Second, Contact the seller and provide the name of the real buyer. Explain what happened.
Seller will send the pistol to FFL of the real buyer
Let your friend do the paper work and pick the pistol from his FFL.

In Short do not do the transaction yourself.
You are the bidder agent of the real buyer no more no less.

You're correct. I should have read that a little closer. The seller will probably cancel the sale altogether.

Alternately, do the transfer. Sell the gun to his buddy, do a new transfer just to keep the paperwork straight.

[Scott B.]

First, do not pay for it under your name.
Second, Contact the seller and provide the name of the real buyer. Explain what happened.
Seller will send the pistol to FFL of the real buyer
Let your friend do the paper work and pick the pistol from his FFL.

In Short do not do the transaction yourself.
You are the bidder agent of the real buyer no more no less.

That is the correct way to handle it. The ATF can consider you buying a gun for someone else, even though they are qualified, as a "straw purchase". Realistically, they probably won't, but you should not risk it. When you fill out the 4473 you are signing that you are buying the gun for yourself. ATF considers that lying on the form.

You're correct. I read the original post and blew past the one where he was going to be reimbursed.

[cyphertext]

You are correct in the case that the actual recipient fills out the 4473. In the case of an online auction described, the seller really doesn't care who the end buyer is, only his FFL. If you buy a gun at auction and the seller sends it to the FFL, then why would they care who fills out the 4473. The FFL just transfers it to the actual buyer, even if it has a not inside that says for John Doe, instead of Sam Smith. The FFL is legal recipient of the first transfer (from seller) and the actual buyer goes and is the (final) transferee. Nobody cares where he got the money.

I don't agree. If the gun comes into the FFL for John Doe, but Sam Smith comes in to do the paperwork, that looks like a straw purchase to me. I wouldn't transfer it.

That would be the same scenario as John Doe looking at a pistol in the shop, choosing one, and then Sam Smith pays and does the paperwork.

[ScottDLS]

The buyer does the transfer. Period. You can gift a firearm purchased with your own money. You cannot do a straw purchase, that is using somebody else's money to buy a gun, do the 4473 in your name, then hand the gun over to the party who provided the money.

In the state of Texas, we have no firearms registry, so you can gift a firearm with a smile - as long as you know that person is not prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm and they reside in the same state as you.

Optionally, you can do a 4473 for the firearm and then have the FFL reacquire the firearm from you and do a new 4473 to who you want to gift/sell the firearm. That's what ATF would like to see done nationally, and it's required in Washington and Oregon, it's only voluntary elsewhere.

So if you buy the firearm for someone whom you know is prohibited (but with your own money), the crime is only committed when you transfer the gun to the prohibited person? I don't think that's the way the ATF views straw purchases. In fact I think there's an argument that Federal jurisdiction does not apply AFTER the transfer from the FFL. By buying a gun from an FFL on behalf of another person you are lying on the 4473. If you really intend to give the firearm as a gift (without compensation) to someone then you ARE the actual transferee. You are receiving it for YOUR use, as a gift. Also the GCA 1968 and regulations reference "transferee" not "buyer". This is how Gunbroker and/or escrow services are not considered dealers.

[apostate]

IANAL and I'm no longer FFL but I don't see any legal issue if the friend does the paperwork, takes possession, and keeps the gun. It seems he is the actual purchaser, regardless of cash flows between striker55, the friend, the GunBroker seller, and the FFL transferring the firearm to the friend.

[RoyGBiv]

IANAL and I'm no longer FFL but I don't see any legal issue if the friend does the paperwork, takes possession, and keeps the gun. It seems he is the actual purchaser, regardless of cash flows between striker55, the friend, the GunBroker seller, and the FFL transferring the firearm to the friend.

I am not a lawyer. this is just my OPINION, not legal advice.

I agree with apostate.

Gunbroker got paid by the OP, but the OP is using funds that he knows will be repaid by the friend, since that was arranged in advance. The friend is the "purchaser" and should be the person to fill out the 4473 at the FFL.

If I was the OP, I would contact the FFL and ask them how they would like to handle this. Seems there are 2 choices.
1. Friend picks up the gun and the 4473 is in friends name since he is actual purchaser. or
2. FFL refuses the incoming transfer and requests the corrected paperwork from the Gunbroker Seller reflecting the actual purchaser.

I don't know how the nuances of the online auction account affect this decision... I would rely on the FFL doing the paperwork to guide me.

One thing I would absolutely NOT do is pick up the gun myself, fill out the 4473 and state that I am the purchaser and then hand the gun to my friend as a gift, unless there was actually no money ever transferred from friend to OP. Stated otherwise... Unless the OP decided to fix this by making it an actual gift.

Just my OPINION.

[PriestTheRunner]

Its real simple.

Either he pays for it and fills out the 4473. You may have to explain to the FFL dealer why you are not buying it. He may refuse to complete the sale. Sucks but so be it.

- - OR - -

You pay for it and fill out the 4473 AND DO NOT GET COMPENSATED FOR IT IN ANY WAY. IE- A real gift.

You have no other legal options.



That supreme court case that the (apparent) straw purchaser lost... He did a full FFL transfer to his uncle. And still got burned. (Because his uncle paid him).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, (straw purchaser) Abramski contacted a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on (the uncle) Alvarez and then proceeded to transfer the gun to (the uncle) Alvarez through the FFL. Completing the transaction, Abramski deposited the check and received a receipt from Alvarez. Later, Abramski was suspected of committing a bank robbery,[7] and his house was searched by Federal agents who found the receipt.[6]

Don't screw with the ATF. They are not 'gun friendly'.

Delete this thread.

Don't break the law.

This is not legal advice, but don't screw yourself over with what you are trying to do.

[rotor]

I am now totally confused. The OP bought the gun and paid for it with his funds. It seems to me that the OP must fill out the 4473, not the person who he bought it for. The OP can gift it to the person he bought it for. He can not get reimbursed. Even if the second party fills out the 4473 it is still a straw purchase as the OP paid for the gun. The person who paid for the gun is the buyer, correct?
The question now is how to legally get it to the second buyer without it being a straw purchase. Gift it or sell it to the second person and go through an FFL. I think this is the only legal way.

[PriestTheRunner]

From Scalia's dissenting opinion...


"The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it—especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused. I respectfully dissent."
- Abramski, 134 S. Ct. at 2283 (Scalia, J., dissenting)

If it is already bought and paid for, then yes. OP must gift the gun to his friend -or- get the FFL to be ok with the friend completing the 4473 and the friend pays the OP back. The buyer is the final possessor of the gun in my opinion. Most likely, the FFL will want the sending FFL to provide an OK'd updated purchaser name so that they know the buyer is not lying.

However, if I were the receiving FFL, I would turn down the deal outright. It stinks of a straw purchase. (IE, friend and OP walk outside and 'friend' immediately gives OP the gun, since OP paid for it. Basically getting 'friend' to fill out the 4473). Thats why I said the receiving FFL may not want to proceed.

As a SCOTUS example, we have the following situation... OP buying the gun, filling out 4473, using a FFL transfer to give to friend, and being reimbursed, and it was considered a straw purchase (even though final buyer was valid). Utter bull but that is the way it was ruled. To avoid these issues, either the friend needs to be the buyer or OP needs to gift the gun. No other way out of it.

This is the kind of problems these regulations can cause when they are improperly applied (as I believe they were in the Abramski case).

[apostate]

If I take possession of a firearm, and a credit card company pays the seller, and I later reimburse the credit card company, I'm still the actual purchaser. I think.