Purchased a gun for a friend

[cyphertext]

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.

But the credit card is in your name and matches your id and the name on the 4473. If Joe Black pays for the firearm with his credit card, but Sam Smith completes the 4473, it looks like a straw purchase and should not proceed.

[TreyHouston]

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.

And if you don’t pay your credit card, it became a gift?!?

[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.

But the credit card is in your name and matches your id and the name on the 4473. If Joe Black pays for the firearm with his credit card, but Sam Smith completes the 4473, it looks like a straw purchase and should not proceed.

I don't fault a licensee who won't do a transfer if they think it smells fishy.

That said, based on the facts given, I don't think any laws were broken yet. I also don't think any laws would be broken if the friend goes to pick up the gun, completes the 4473 as transferee, and enjoys the gun for many years to come. That would be a very different fact pattern than the fraudulent purchase at the core of the Abramski case.

IMHO IANAL YMMV BBQ

[TreyHouston]

I purchased it because I had an account and he didn't and the auction was counting down.

THIS is the comment I worry about. Who said intentions? It wasn't me.

You CAN call the ATF and ask them, be sure to get the name of the agent your talking to and record the conversation (if your in Texas). They DO answer the phone, you have done NOTHING WRONG at this point. I wouldn't take legal advice here. Go straight to the horse!

[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.

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.

I'm not saying that at all. In the OP's case, he could do the transfer since he paid for the firearm. If he's then going to sell the firearm to his buddy, he can either do that with a handshake OR have the FFL do another 4473 from him to his buddy.

His buddy can't come in and do the transfer because his name isn't on the invoice/contact info from the sending FFL. That's the straw purchase trap.

Providing a firearm to a prohibited person is a separate issue from the transfer. I mention it only because you can gift a firearm, within the same state*, to anybody as long as you don't run afoul of that particular trap.

* Commie states excluded.

[PriestTheRunner]

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.

I'm not saying that at all. In the OP's case, he could do the transfer since he paid for the firearm. If he's then going to sell the firearm to his buddy, he can either do that with a handshake OR have the FFL do another 4473 from him to his buddy.

His buddy can't come in and do the transfer because his name isn't on the invoice/contact info from the sending FFL. That's the straw purchase trap.

Providing a firearm to a prohibited person is a separate issue from the transfer. I mention it only because you can gift a firearm, within the same state*, to anybody as long as you don't run afoul of that particular trap.

* Commie states excluded.

This kind of advice will get the OP arrested.

Scott, you need to read the details of the Abramski case. What you are recommending is EXACTLY what did. Bought the gun. Passed the BG check. Sold the gun through a FFL and still got burned.

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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

[Misfit Child]

The uncle was not eligible to purchase the Glock under the LEO program, so it was a clear straw man purchase.

[ScottDLS]

The uncle was not eligible to purchase the Glock under the LEO program, so it was a fraud purchase from the start.

That’s irrelevant to federal firearms law and at most a civil matter between the original seller and Abramski.

[Misfit Child]

The courts didn't think it was irrelevant. caveat emptor

[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.

I'm not saying that at all. In the OP's case, he could do the transfer since he paid for the firearm. If he's then going to sell the firearm to his buddy, he can either do that with a handshake OR have the FFL do another 4473 from him to his buddy.

His buddy can't come in and do the transfer because his name isn't on the invoice/contact info from the sending FFL. That's the straw purchase trap.

Providing a firearm to a prohibited person is a separate issue from the transfer. I mention it only because you can gift a firearm, within the same state*, to anybody as long as you don't run afoul of that particular trap.

* Commie states excluded.

This kind of advice will get the OP arrested.

Scott, you need to read the details of the Abramski case. What you are recommending is EXACTLY what did. Bought the gun. Passed the BG check. Sold the gun through a FFL and still got burned.

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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

Wow this is even more terrible case law than I thought. That is why I also feel that the advice to OP by the other Scott, is risky. Federal law deals with the transfer of firearms in interstate commerce, not the payment. In the original post, the situation was a transfer from the auction seller’s FFL to the buyer’s FFL. That is all ATF cares about, not who wrote the check or whose name was on the invoice. When the TRANSFEREE picks up the gun from the receiving FFL, he indicates on the 4473 that he is acquiring the gun for his own use, not that he paid the bill, or whose money was used to buy it. If he had a preexisting arrangement to give the gun to somebody else, whether paid or not, he is lying on the form and is conducting a straw purchase.

[ScottDLS]

The courts didn't think it was irrelevant. caveat emptor

You completely misinterpreted the decision. The payment in advance by the uncle was used as evidence that Abramski was not acquiring the gun for his own use. That is lying on the 4473 and the definition of a straw purchase. The fact that he got the LEO discount was completely irrelevant to the decision, and played no part in the illegality of the transaction.

[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.

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.

I'm not saying that at all. In the OP's case, he could do the transfer since he paid for the firearm. If he's then going to sell the firearm to his buddy, he can either do that with a handshake OR have the FFL do another 4473 from him to his buddy.

His buddy can't come in and do the transfer because his name isn't on the invoice/contact info from the sending FFL. That's the straw purchase trap.

Providing a firearm to a prohibited person is a separate issue from the transfer. I mention it only because you can gift a firearm, within the same state*, to anybody as long as you don't run afoul of that particular trap.

* Commie states excluded.

This kind of advice will get the OP arrested.

Scott, you need to read the details of the Abramski case. What you are recommending is EXACTLY what did. Bought the gun. Passed the BG check. Sold the gun through a FFL and still got burned.

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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

The lynch pin in Abramski is that Alvarez sent Abramski a check, for $400, first.

In the OP's case. He is the actual buyer of the firearm. Spent his own money and, if he goes through with it, does the transfer.

[Scott B.]

The courts didn't think it was irrelevant. caveat emptor

You completely misinterpreted the decision. The payment in advance by the uncle was used as evidence that Abramski was not acquiring the gun for his own use. That is lying on the 4473 and the definition of a straw purchase. The fact that he got the LEO discount was completely irrelevant to the decision, and played no part in the illegality of the transaction.

Agreed.

Thank goodness I went shooting today and had a great time busting some clays.

[PriestTheRunner]

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.

I'm not saying that at all. In the OP's case, he could do the transfer since he paid for the firearm. If he's then going to sell the firearm to his buddy, he can either do that with a handshake OR have the FFL do another 4473 from him to his buddy.

His buddy can't come in and do the transfer because his name isn't on the invoice/contact info from the sending FFL. That's the straw purchase trap.

Providing a firearm to a prohibited person is a separate issue from the transfer. I mention it only because you can gift a firearm, within the same state*, to anybody as long as you don't run afoul of that particular trap.

* Commie states excluded.

This kind of advice will get the OP arrested.

Scott, you need to read the details of the Abramski case. What you are recommending is EXACTLY what did. Bought the gun. Passed the BG check. Sold the gun through a FFL and still got burned.

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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

The lynch pin in Abramski is that Alvarez sent Abramski a check, for $400, first.

In the OP's case. He is the actual buyer of the firearm. Spent his own money and, if he goes through with it, does the transfer.

The check merely established that Abramski intended to resell the gun before buying it. The exact timing of the transfer of funds is irrelevant. Or do you think you can make an arrangement with me to buy a gun for you and 'as long as I don't pay until after, its fine...' That is still a straw purchase. It doesn't matter when the money changes hand if the intent of the 'buyer' at time of purchase was to resell the gun.

Posting on a forum "I bought this gun to sell to my friend" also clearly implies the intent to resell before making the purchase... Thus a straw purchase....

I stand by my statement:

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.

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.

My advice to OP is to email both FFL's and explain the situation. Get their advice and proceed. Or even ask the ATF. Anything but taking advice on an internet forum. Its clear that some here do not realize how screwed over by the ATF you could be.

[PriestTheRunner]

Also, all of this is a moot point if it is going to truly be a gift with nothing in return to OP.

In that case it is completely legal and don't mention anything to the FFLs or the seller. Nothing to mention as gift's aren't considered straw purchases (as long as there is no intent or acceptance of reimbursement).

Again, not a lawyer, not legal advice... But dang some people don't know how thin that ice gets.

Good luck OP.