Staw purchase question

[atxgun]

Didn't want to keep the david spade thread hijacked so I started this one.

Question: Even if a straw purchase is technically defined as buying a gun for someone else does that really make it totally illegal? Say I just wanted to buy a gun as a gift for a friend that is completely legal to own. I find it odd that would be an offense.

I forget the exact wording on the paperwork but the first yes/no question relates to you buying the gun for yourself and not someone else. If you are buying for a gift and honestly answer no to that question are you likely to be denied the purchase? (Maybe the exact wording stipulates not buying it for someone that cannot legally purchase themselves, so please correct me if I forgot that part)

[WildBill]

This is not legal advice, but a gift is not a straw purchase. You are buying the gun for yourself, so that you can give it to someone as a gift. When you bought it, you were not buying it for another person.

It's a fine line. Let's say that you wanted to buy a friend a new gun for his birthday, but didn't have quite enough money, so he chipped in another $50. I would think that would be illegal as a straw purchase.

Again IANAL, just food for thought and discussion.

[Skiprr]

Question: Even if a straw purchase is technically defined as buying a gun for someone else does that really make it totally illegal?

I think the better way to rephrase a description of a straw purchase would be "buying a gun on behalf of someone else," as in acting as an agent of, or proxy for, another. Valid gifts don't apply.

I forget the exact wording on the paperwork but the first yes/no question relates to you buying the gun for yourself and not someone else.

Item 11 is where you encounter the "yes" or "no" questions a. through l. on Form 4473. The first, 11.a., reads:

Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)

"Important Notice 1" on page three of Form 4473 reads:

1. Actual Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (for example, redeeming the firearm from from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual buyer if you are legitimately acquiring the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT the actual buyer of the firearm and must answer "no" to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual buyer of the firearm and should answer "yes" to question 11.a. Please note, if you are picking up a repaired firearm for another person, you should answer "n/a" to question 11.a.

To my knowledge, there is no direct definition of, or reference to, "straw purchases" anywhere in Title 18. The actual interpretation comes together from the BATFE, not from a literal, singular reference in Title 18. But we all know IANAL.

For some more fun reading, here's U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44; of most interest will Sections 921, 922, and 924.

Also, here is a link at FindLaw to the case of the U.S. vs. Safiallah Muhammad Nelson from August 2000. It's a relatively short read, is pretty clearly a straw purchase situation, and points to the relevant places in Title 18 for reference.

[HankB]

Just a few thoughts . . . these are observations, not recommendations:

1. Unless someone involved does something nefarious, a "prohibited person" is involved, or a state line is crossed, it's unlikely a single "straw purchase" will ever be uncovered, let alone prosecuted . . . unless someone opens his pie-hole.

2. I have reason to believe that a lot of what are technically "straw purchases" involve a parent filling out the paperwork for a gun Junior saved up his money for.

[KD5NRH]

Here's an odd question: say person A wants to gift person B a firearm, so both go to the store. Person A lays out the cash, while person B fills out the 4473 and takes possession of the firearm. Seller knows person A has a CHL, and thus is not a prohibited person, and has valid reason to believe that person B will retain the firearm. (assume a small youth/lady's model well suited for B, and A is a large male) Clearly the intent of the law is not violated, but is there any technical violation in this situation?

[boomerang]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... p1-6505348

According to the lawsuit, Carter's Country was negligent because although Quintero did the shopping, the salesperson allowed his wife, Theresa, to fill out the federally mandated paperwork for the purchase of the gun as if she were the actual purchaser. They did this, it says, because Quintero's immigration status and criminal record made him ineligible to legally buy a gun. It's called a straw sale and it's illegal.

[barres]

Here's an odd question: say person A wants to gift person B a firearm, so both go to the store. Person A lays out the cash, while person B fills out the 4473 and takes possession of the firearm. Seller knows person A has a CHL, and thus is not a prohibited person, and has valid reason to believe that person B will retain the firearm. (assume a small youth/lady's model well suited for B, and A is a large male) Clearly the intent of the law is not violated, but is there any technical violation in this situation?

If the seller believes that Person B will be the owner of the firearm and Person B fills out the 4473, then there is no problem. The problem arises when the seller reasonably believes that Person A will retain (own) the firearm, but Person B fills out the 4473.

When my wife and I shopped for her first pistol, I gave her lots of advice and, when she found a used pistol that she liked, I thoroughly looked it over. It probably looked like I was really the buyer. When the clerk came out with the paperwork, though, I turned the my wife and said, "You're filling this out. It's going to be your gun, after all." We might have seemed kind of suspicious, if I hadn't spent much of the last half-hour asking her how it felt in her hand, was it as comfortable as the pistol she had borrowed at the range earlier, did she have any trouble racking the slide, etc. My wife also couldn't stop saying, "I can't believe I'm buying my first gun."

[03Lightningrocks]

Over the years, I have purchased firearms for darned near everybody in my family. With the exception of my youngest brother who was convicted of a felony 27 years ago and can't buy a firearm to this day. I even gave my future son-in-law a shotgun for christmas. I can't imagine how these type purchases could be construed as illegal. Firearms are absolutely the best gift a person can give...IMHO...LOL.

[KD5NRH]

If the seller believes that Person B will be the owner of the firearm and Person B fills out the 4473, then there is no problem. The problem arises when the seller reasonably believes that Person A will retain (own) the firearm, but Person B fills out the 4473.

I figured as much; this is how I bought my wife's birthday shotgun for her. The seller is as picky as one would expect, and not afraid to speak up, but I'm pretty sure he felt safe that a CHL holder wouldn't be making a blatant straw purchse of a youth-size 20ga via a small woman who fit the gun perfectly.