I have 3 pistols in classified right now. Let us say someone is interested in my pistols, but do not have cash and only have credit card. Here is my question...

Is it possible and legal for the "potential" buyer to purchase a rifle that "I" like from an on-line vendor and have it shipped to my "FFL" directly to "my" name as the recipient? The buyer pays for the rifle using his/her credit card? And have it shipped to "MY" name?

Then, I will ship "my pistols" to HIS FFL for the TRADE?

I DO NOT want to violate the "straw purchase law" or any other Federal/State/Local laws.

Your thoughts or analysis please?

I would just have them use Vinmo.

You get paid cash through the app and the sender can use a credit card.

I will second the use of Venmo.

It seems much more legit.

I knew there has to be an easier way to handle this. Never heard of Venmo before. I will research that app. A lot less complicated. Thanks guys.

Isn't VENMO part of PAYPAL?

I don’t see how shipping a gun to your ffl as your property constitutes a straw purchase- it’s no different than buying a gun and having it shipped. The end result is the same. The gun is transferred into your name and on the books as yours. If the other member in question is a reputable one (I suspect this is the case) I don’t see any issues. It would be the same as buying a rifle as a gift for a family member out of state as a gift.

straw purchase: it's not the same as buying a gift for a relative when buyer knows it's not for his own use, which is the 1st question on the 4473.

I see problems like what happens if the gun being ordered for you is damaged or lost? Who gets the refund? The prior suggestions are good ones. Use a service.

quote:

Originally posted by airbubba:
straw purchase: it's not the same as buying a gift for a relative when buyer knows it's not for his own use, which is the 1st question on the 4473.

But if the gun is passing through an FFL, I don’t see how it’s a straw purchase. It’s not like he’s buying it and handing it to him in the parking lot. Would it make a difference if the guy bought it and then had the FFL ship it to the other FFL? The new owner fills out a new 4473 stating the gun is his in any case.

I believe he's asking if the guy buying a gun and trading it to him is a straw purchase since the guy really isn't buying the new gun for himself..

Shipping has nothing to do with making it a straw purchase, that is legal if you are shipping your gun to his FFL and he's shipping his to yours ...

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Isn't VENMO part of PAYPAL?

It is, and doesn’t PayPal hate gun owners?
When someone tried to convince me to allow paying organizational dues through Venmo, that was one of the reasons I declined.

Yes, I realize that as has been pointed out here, boycotts don’t really accomplish anything, but I do believe in informed decisions.

If adore if filling out the 4473, passing NICS and keeping the gun, it's not a straw purchase. lol

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Isn't VENMO part of PAYPAL?

It is, and doesn’t PayPal hate gun owners?
When someone tried to convince me to allow paying organizational dues through Venmo, that was one of the reasons I declined.

Yes, I realize that as has been pointed out here, boycotts don’t really accomplish anything, but I do believe in informed decisions.

+1
I don't understand why gun owners insist on helping businesses that don't support them.

Why make things complicated?
Sell him your guns thru an FFL...
Get payment.
Go do what you want.

Then there are no messy complications.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gearhounds:

The gun is transferred into your name and on the books as yours. If the other member in question is a reputable one (I suspect this is the case) I don’t see any issues.

atf may not look at it the same way.

I think a straw purchase is when the person how will ultimately take the possession of the gun is different than the person how is doing paperwork/background check.

No one is deceiving anyone with what you proposed. You are doing the paperwork and taking possession of the gun. I don't think it matters who pays for it.

Straw purchase would be the other guy does the paperwork/background check, walks out with the gun and then gives it to you.

quote:

Originally posted by airbubba:
straw purchase: it's not the same as buying a gift for a relative when buyer knows it's not for his own use, which is the 1st question on the 4473.

I disagree. It’s like if I go to the gun store with my wife. I buy a gun and do all the paperwork. She pays with her credit card. She has no license. I do and the gun is for me. Not a straw purchase. However it could be viewed as one if there is an assumption I’m giving her the gun. With the OP it’s less questionable since it’s being shipped to an ffl. I could be wrong. It’s an interesting question. In my commie state it doesn’t usually matter if the details make it legal. If they want to screw you for it they just interpret the law how they want.

Yeah yeah yeah, it might be paypal.

But I see that as far less complicated that "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" arrangement.

Or you tell this guy who is so broke he can't pay cash to take out cash advances on said credit card to pay in cash.

Or you look for another buyer.

Personally I wouldn't see this as a straw purchase, but is it worth it? Total pass.

I don’t see how this would be any different than the hundreds of gun raffles held each year.

A gun is paid for by someone else.
Delivery is from an FFL to an individual via. Form 4473 with associated background check.
The one who signs the Form 4473 is answering the question truthfully, they are not purchasing the gun for someone else.

However, I would never agree to sell a gun to someone who would propose this method of payment.
Either you have the funds or you do not.
Additionally, very unlikely that an on-line dealer would participate in this exchange.

If I understand this correctly........what you propose is not a straw purchase.

The 4473 uses the terminology “purchaser” which is what is generating the confusion. Think of it like this-

Are you providing materially false information to make an illegal transaction appear to be legal. You are not. The USC violation requires (you)to induce or an entice an FFL to make a false entry into his bound book. He is just basically doing a transfer.

Completely not the case.

I agree with other posters that I would be wary. The only explanation I have for it is he doesn’t have the cash but has room on a credit card.