There should be more of these, but what do I know...

https://www.ourquadcities.com/...g-firearm-purchases/

Davenport man sentenced over two years for making false statements during firearm purchases

Posted: May 28, 2021 / 02:41 PM CDT / Updated: May 28, 2021 / 02:41 PM CDT

On Thursday, United States District Court Chief Judge John A. Jarvey sentenced Joshua Lee Scheper, 40, of Davenport, to 30 months in prison for making false statements during firearm purchases.

Scheper was also ordered to serve three years of supervised release after his prison term and pay $100 to the Crime Victims’ Fund.

According to court records, law enforcement identified Scheper as someone who was purchasing firearms for individuals that were prohibited from having them. He indicated on purchase forms that he was the intended buyer, even though in most cases Scheper was buying firearms for someone else and sold them immediately after purchasing them.

Scheper confessed to selling the guns in order to make a quick profit.

Between 2014 and 2016, Scheper bought 26 guns, at least seven were involved in criminal activity, including four homicides in Chicago.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Iowa.

Sooo, Hunter Biden??

That was my first thought as well! Of course we know that will be swept under the rug..

They want to punish the gun owners, but do nothing for straw purchasers, illegal possession, or theft of guns. Seven crimes that his guns were used in, he should get a year extra for each one.

That's a gun control law almost anyone can agree with but this is a news story because it's so infrequently enforced.
He should have been charged with something for each of the crimes they were used in too.
But that doesn't fit the agenda.

quote:

They want to punish the gun owners, but do nothing for straw purchasers

^^^^^^^^^
They are making progress. It is the old Mississippi Delta pawnshop purchase for gangs in Chicago. Sad to say they busted three active duty service member doing this very thing.

How long do you have to own a firearm before you can privately transfer it?

I am in no way condoning straw purchases and will delete this post if need be. But there has to be a standard, right?

Being in California, I don’t think a private sale is legal. I think both parties have to go to an FFL, background check, ten day wait, etc.

I’ve only sold guns directly to Gun shops. Even then I had to jump through a lot of hoops.

^^^^everywhere els in the USA it isn’t like that....you buy a gun and you can sell it anytime. The ATF can call you out if they think you are in it for a profit. There is no set number of sales before they can hammer you.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Sooo, Hunter Biden??

Any idea what you did by posting this?

Sounds like the perp got off too easy!

I once had a FFL refuse to sell me a gun because I told them it was a gift for my Dad. According to the letter of the law I suppose they were right. I went to another store and bought myself a really nice pistol that I quickly got bored of and gave it to my Dad.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Sooo, Hunter Biden??

Any idea what you did by posting this?

I'm pretty sure you're pointing out that I've posted political content in an apolitical thread.

Obviously, the criminal acts of the defendant (now convicted & sentenced) are far more severe than just 'making false statements' on a 4473, but that's the headline. I interpreted the OP's comment to be relating to falsified statements on a 4473, and drew an obvious conclusion/comparison (for me) to the high profile non-prosecution that I referred to, which had come to light somewhat recently. I honestly thought the OP was inferring the same, somewhat 'tongue in cheek' without specifically stating it due to the use of the ellipsis (...). Though not intending to post a 'blatantly' political comment, I understand that's how it's been interpreted. As such, I've crossed a line, and for that please accept my sincere apologies.

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:
How long do you have to own a firearm before you can privately transfer it?

I am in no way condoning straw purchases and will delete this post if need be. But there has to be a standard, right?

Being in California, I don’t think a private sale is legal. I think both parties have to go to an FFL, background check, ten day wait, etc.

I’ve only sold guns directly to Gun shops. Even then I had to jump through a lot of hoops.

No given set time.
The issue here is he is knowingly buying them for people that can’t legally own them. You can buy then sell as quickly as you want.
The issue is are you purchasing to subvert the background for someone who can’t pass it.

Of course the number of quick sales then get folks wondering if you should possess an FFL yourself.

quote:

I once had a FFL refuse to sell me a gun because I told them it was a gift for my Dad.

And they were wrong. You weren't buying on behalf of a prohibited person. You answered (or would have answered) truthfully the "are you the actual buyer of the firearm" question. However, their confusion is understandable.

I don't know from reading this article what the guy was really doing, but buying a gun to flip it is not a straw purchase.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

I once had a FFL refuse to sell me a gun because I told them it was a gift for my Dad.

And they were wrong. You weren't buying on behalf of a prohibited person. You answered (or would have answered) truthfully the "are you the actual buyer of the firearm" question. However, their confusion is understandable.

As I understand it purchases of guns as Gifts for a relative are perfectly legal and my aging memory is that there is an explicit exemption for this in the Law about Straw Purchases.

Did some Googling and my memory just aint up to snuff. There is a Proposal in Congress to provide a specific Gift Exemption but it's not Law at present. However Gifting a firearm is perfectly legal provided that the person receiving the firearm can legally possess a firearm. This even holds true in most states that prohibit private transfers.

As for this Iowa Man, that sentence was obviously the result of a Plea Bargain. Personally I think think he should have received the maximum sentence. Hopefully he was sentenced as a Felon and we won't be seeing this useless sack of shit in any gun shops in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

I once had a FFL refuse to sell me a gun because I told them it was a gift for my Dad.

And they were wrong. You weren't buying on behalf of a prohibited person. You answered (or would have answered) truthfully the "are you the actual buyer of the firearm" question. However, their confusion is understandable.

Just to be clear, the fact that the intended recipient is not a prohibited person is not really relevant. Of course if they are a prohibited person and you have reason to know that, you cannot legally give it to them. But, it can still be a straw purchase, even if the recipient could have legally bought it themselves.

You are the purchaser and answer yes on the 4473 if you are buying it with your funds and there was no arrangement ahead of time for you to get it for someone else. Your money, you purchase it, and then you give it as a gift.

If someone asks you to buy a gun for them, even if they legally could buy it themselves, that is a straw purchase, and you can not answer "yes" on the 4473.

It certainly seems ridiculous to prosecute someone when the recipient could legally own or have bought it themselves, but that is the current state of the law.

I think the point is that certain people like to claim that background purchases stop X number (usually in the thousands) of criminals/prohibited persons each year but then fail to mention that's a violation of federal law and that almost no one gets prosecuted afterwards.