TexasCHLforum.com

cyphertext wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
It should be no problem if the friend goes and fills in the 4473. The previous transfer "sale" had nothing to do with who was paying for the auction. The first transfer is from FFL to FFL. No straw purchase by definition. Then the friend comes in a picks up the gun that OP "paid for", no problem. The auction site FFL is not responsible to tell the receiving FFL who to transfer it to. The legal transfer takes place from the inventory of one FFL to the other, even though neither of them is actually paying for the gun (other than a transfer fee).

I disagree... The friend coming in to do the background check that the OP paid for is a red flag and is an issue. You are looking for a loophole. Again, if this was a brick and mortar only scenario, if OP pays and friend does paperwork, the transfer should be stopped by the FFL. You are adding a step by purchasing online, but the premise remains the same. The FFL is handling the transfer started by the original transaction for a fee... these are not separate deals. FFL A didn't send the firearm to FFL B to be added to inventory to be transferred to anyone... FFL A sent it to FFL B to complete the transfer to the OP, the purchaser only. OP paid for the firearm which is the whole reason it left FFL A inventory.

In the auction scenario this takes place all the time. Seller A advertises the gun on Gunbroker for sale. A bidder B wins the bid. B pays A, then provides instructions to get it to a FFL of B's choice. A gets paid by B. A transfers the gun to his dealer "Gunbroker FFL'" with instructions on sending it to B's FFL. There is no requirement to even provide B's name. B could even be unqualified to own a firearm. Gunbroker FFL sends it to B FFL. Completely legal transfer. No money involved. B FFL receives the gun and can then legally transfer it to any qualified buyer in his state. There's no entry in the FFL Record of Firearm Acquisitions and Dispositions for whom the gun is ultimately destined. There is one entry to log in from A's FFL, then one entry to sell it to whomever picks it up. Who pays is irrelevant UNLESS the transferee bought the gun with intent to supply it to someone else AND ACTUALLY DOES. Then the payments can be an indication of intent. ATF still has to prove this.

cyphertext wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: I would concur with both of you.....
The only complication is whether there's paperwork from the auction seller with the OP's name on it that causes the FFL to balk. If the "friend" is the source of the funds for the purchase and the friend files the 4473 as the transferee, I don't see how that would be illegal. The OP never takes possession and never has to file a 4473 for the gun.

If I walk in to a LGS with my friend and pay for a handgun, can my friend file the 4473 and take possession?
Does it matter whether he plans to pay me back when we get home?
Seems to me this is perfectly legal.

I am not a lawyer. Just my opinion.

That's where I have the issue... paperwork from auction has one name on it and another person wants to do the 4473. As the FFL, I have no idea who is who and should not complete the transfer.

No, If you pay for the handgun at the LGS, you must be the one doing the paperwork. Again, it looks like a straw sale since you are paying but the friend is doing the paperwork. As the FFL, I have no way of knowing that the friend is going to pay you back, or why you are doing this... From what I can see you are paying for the gun but someone else is doing the paperwork. I'm going to err on the side of caution and assume that you are not doing the paperwork because you can not pass the background check.

Your example has "indications" that the transferee might be conducting a straw purchase and the ATF will want to you take that into account while deciding whether to accept the sale. But what if my buddy gives me $500 to by MYSELF a new pistol. I go into your shop and fill out the 4473 without my buddy present and buy the gun and keep it. Is that a straw sale because the person gave me the money? What if he writes me a check I offer to endorse it over to the gun store to buy the gun, THAT I THEN KEEP. Ignore the issue of whether a business takes 3rd party checks. Is the transaction legal? YES. If my buddy comes in the store points at the gun, says "I want that one" hands me $500 and I fill out the paperwork and take and KEEP the gun (we came in separate cars) can the ATF prosecute me without a transfer to my buddy taking place? NO. Can they gig the FFL? Maybe by upping the date for his inspection, but there is no legal jeopardy as long as I keep the gun.

If your buddy gives you the money as a gift and you buy the gun and do the paperwork with the intent to keep it, no problem.

Same thing as if friend purchased you a gift card that you used towards the purchase of a firearm, that you intended to keep. That is fine, no red flags.

But that is not the scenario here. The OP made the purchase for the friend. He has clearly stated that he made the purchase for a friend because the friend did not have a GB account.
Any scenario where one person says I want this and another person pays and/or does paperwork should be stopped by the FFL.

It should be no problem if the friend goes and fills in the 4473. The previous transfer "sale" had nothing to do with who was paying for the auction. The first transfer is from FFL to FFL. No straw purchase by definition. Then the friend comes in a picks up the gun that OP "paid for", no problem. The auction site FFL is not responsible to tell the receiving FFL who to transfer it to. The legal transfer takes place from the inventory of one FFL to the other, even though neither of them is actually paying for the gun (other than a transfer fee).

cyphertext wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: I would concur with both of you.....
The only complication is whether there's paperwork from the auction seller with the OP's name on it that causes the FFL to balk. If the "friend" is the source of the funds for the purchase and the friend files the 4473 as the transferee, I don't see how that would be illegal. The OP never takes possession and never has to file a 4473 for the gun.

If I walk in to a LGS with my friend and pay for a handgun, can my friend file the 4473 and take possession?
Does it matter whether he plans to pay me back when we get home?
Seems to me this is perfectly legal.

I am not a lawyer. Just my opinion.

That's where I have the issue... paperwork from auction has one name on it and another person wants to do the 4473. As the FFL, I have no idea who is who and should not complete the transfer.

No, If you pay for the handgun at the LGS, you must be the one doing the paperwork. Again, it looks like a straw sale since you are paying but the friend is doing the paperwork. As the FFL, I have no way of knowing that the friend is going to pay you back, or why you are doing this... From what I can see you are paying for the gun but someone else is doing the paperwork. I'm going to err on the side of caution and assume that you are not doing the paperwork because you can not pass the background check.

Your example has "indications" that the transferee might be conducting a straw purchase and the ATF will want to you take that into account while deciding whether to accept the sale. But what if my buddy gives me $500 to by MYSELF a new pistol. I go into your shop and fill out the 4473 without my buddy present and buy the gun and keep it. Is that a straw sale because the person gave me the money? What if he writes me a check I offer to endorse it over to the gun store to buy the gun, THAT I THEN KEEP. Ignore the issue of whether a business takes 3rd party checks. Is the transaction legal? YES. If my buddy comes in the store points at the gun, says "I want that one" hands me $500 and I fill out the paperwork and take and KEEP the gun (we came in separate cars) can the ATF prosecute me without a transfer to my buddy taking place? NO. Can they gig the FFL? Maybe by upping the date for his inspection, but there is no legal jeopardy as long as I keep the gun.

cyphertext wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
You are correct. This is the right way to do it. The auction site, payment, and notation on the auction slip are irrelevant. The auction FFL transfers the gun to the local FFL. Who paid and what credit card etc. etc. are irrelevant. What is relevant is that the person that receives the transfer from the local FFL is the end user of the gun. If a few days later he decides to sell it fine. But when he picks it up he intends to use it himself.

Payment is not irrelevant. Go look at the 4473. "Actual transferee/Buyer" is how it is listed. You aren't the actual buyer if you aren't the one paying for it. This scenario is outlined in the examples as well.

You are the actual buyer if you really keep it. It doesn't matter if your buddy gave you the money as long as you take possession. It doesn't matter if your company reimburses you for the gun because you bought it for work, or if they bought it directly. The paperwork is to the transferee for transfer of control/possession. The title can be held by another individual and is a matter of state law.

apostate wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

apostate wrote: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.

Logic has no place in this discussion.

Seriously, now. Unless the friend who has already promised to repay the OP is the person who files the original 4473, I believe (my opinion here) that it would be considered a straw purchase. This despite Scalias dissent.

To be clear, I'm saying I don't see what law is broken if the friend is the one who picks up the gun, completes the 4473, and keeps the gun. If the OP doesn't do a 4473, how can he be lying on a 4473? If the friend does the 4473 and keeps the gun, how can he be lying on a 4473?

You are correct. This is the right way to do it. The auction site, payment, and notation on the auction slip are irrelevant. The auction FFL transfers the gun to the local FFL. Who paid and what credit card etc. etc. are irrelevant. What is relevant is that the person that receives the transfer from the local FFL is the end user of the gun. If a few days later he decides to sell it fine. But when he picks it up he intends to use it himself.

Misfit Child wrote: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.

PriestTheRunner wrote:

Scott B. wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Scott B. wrote: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.

Misfit Child wrote: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.

Scott B. wrote: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.

Scott B. wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

SigM4 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
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.

striker55 wrote: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.

SigM4 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
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.

Scott B. wrote:

Beiruty wrote: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.

Do not do this.

You paid for it, you do the transfer. After that, you may gift it to anybody you like in the state of Texas as long as you know they are legally able to own a firearm.

I have an 07/02 FFL/SOT and I do transfers 6 days a week.

And then ATF can (theoretically) go after him like they did the guy in the SCOTUS case in Virginia where he bought it for his father to get a discount and then transferred it to his father who actually paid for it. Went all the way to SCOTUS and the straw buyer lost. The father was eligible to receive the gun, but because he reimbursed the son, ATF said son lied in the 4473. If you are not actually buying it as a gift, you shouldn't lie on the 4473, even though you'll likely get away with it. It didn't help that the buyer was suspected by the FBI of being a bank robber but they could never prove it....

Beiruty wrote: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.