quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny 3eagles:
If the instrument of payment is in his name, the 4473 must be in his name.

I am not feeling good about this transaction.

Basically it's: "Hey baby - I'll pay the guy - all you gotta do is go in and fill out the paperwork."

If you were a convicted felon this is one way you would get a gun.

Go with your gut.

Call me whatever you want - but for sales this is why I like to consign through local FFLs. I sleep better at night.

YMMV.

-------------------------------

I understand your concern. But, if you were a convicted felon, why go through the trouble. Letting his wife pay and do all the transfer would be smoother, wouldn't it?

My guy tells me you can buy a gun and give it as a gift, so I don't see any problem on your part.

quote:

Originally posted by 2002_Viper_GTS_ACR:
Of course I am going to send it to FFL, just wanted to make sure if HE pays me I am still allowed to send the gun in his wife’s name to the FFL.

Sorry if I seem a bit apprehensive, I did infact dump these guns for cheap and I just want to get rid of them, but not get my azz in a sling either.

I’ll share my crazy Sig X5/X6 collection invanother thread. Its been a while since I was here, time to say HI back to you all

You're not the FFL; what does it matter what name you put on your notes/bill of sale? Cover you rear end and put HIS name on the BOS since he paid for it, and let him worry about whether the FFL will put the 4473 in her name or not when they do the official paperwork.

That's not your problem at all, your following the law. What he does on his end is no concern of yours.

If a felon wants a gun all he has to do is go down to the nearest Hood. Plenty of trunks there open between 2 and 4 AM.

It's a straw purchase, and I would not participate in it. Even though the ultimate responsibility is on the FFL who is getting the 4473 and the wife filling it out, I wouldn't want any part of it.

Here's the deal. Question 11.a. on the 4473 reads in part:

"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person."

If husband pays for it, and wife fills out the 4473, she cannot answer "yes" to this question. She is not the actual buyer and she is acquiring it on behalf of her husband, who was the purchaser. This is the case even if his intent is to gift it to her. It may be his intent to gift it to her, but this is not how to do it. If he wants to buy a gun to give to his wife, he can buy it, fill out the 4473, take possession of it, and when he gets home he says "here you go honey, happy anniversary".

As stupid as it seems, the Supreme Court has ruled that even if both parties can legally possess a firearm it can still be a straw purchase.

He may be ineligible to buy a gun, so he's doing it on gunbroker and asking that it be sent to his wife. Or it may be completely innocent, and he wants to pay for it and thinks she needs to fill out the 4473. But clearly, she does not need to fill out the 4473. There is a clear exception for buying a gift. Tell him to keep it all legal it has to ship to him since he bought it, and he needs to fill out th 4473. He can then wrap it up, or not, and give it as a gift to his wife.

A bonified gift is not a straw purchase. Some of y'all need to shed the tin foil hats. If you transfer to an FFL, you are in the clear.

Put John and Jane Doe on it. The onus is on the FFL and the purchaser.

quote:

Originally posted by JDG:
A bonified gift is not a straw purchase. Some of y'all need to shed the tin foil hats. If you transfer to an FFL, you are in the clear.

Yup.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

If it were me, I would do one of two things.

1. Cancel the transaction, and notify GB as to the reason.

2. Send it through the FFL, and all the info, Bill of Sale, copy of the Gunbroker transaction to the FFL and keep a copy.

And make sure the buyer "husband", is listed as the buying/paying party and the inteded recipient of the firearm.

That would be if everything came accross as an honest ignorance of the buyer's part.

Send it to the FFL, period. Enclose a note "For Mr/Mrs. XYZ" The end.

You're transferring to the FFL, that's it. There's no way for it to be a straw purchase as far as your involvement is concerned.

The guy used his gunbroker account rather than making a new one for his wife. Nothing wrong with that.

And to whoever posted above, she will be the actual transferee, the word you overlook while focusing on "buyer." She is the actual person taking possession of the firearm; the person it is being transferred to. It would actually be more of a straw purchase if the guy paid and took the transfer, then handed to his wife. The wife fills out the paperwork and is subject to any background check. This is not a straw purchase.

OP, if you're not comfortable, then don't do it. But I think telling you the actual scenario is more legitimate and legal than if you sent it to his attention via the FFL. Do what you will.

Let's think about this.

If he wins the auction but she writes the check from a bank account with only direct deposits from his work, who is paying for the gun?

Would you accept a check from her if he won the action?

Y'all think too much.

Send it to the FFL for Mr & Mrs John & Jane Doe and be done with it.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
It's a straw purchase...

Here's the deal. Question 11.a. on the 4473 reads in part:

Man, untwist a few strands on the wire cinch for your tinfoil hat and maybe have a drink or something. Then read the detailed portion at the end of the form talking about Mr. Brown and Mr. Black and tell me what you think about your theory if Mr. Brown and Mr. Black were married and neither was a felon and they had a joint bank account.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
As stupid as it seems, the Supreme Court has ruled that even if both parties can legally possess a firearm it can still be a straw purchase.

For the sake of discussion, can you cite that, please? I'm sure there's ways, but I'd like to know what you're specifically referring to.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
It's a straw purchase...

Here's the deal. Question 11.a. on the 4473 reads in part:

Man, untwist a few strands on the wire cinch for your tinfoil hat and maybe have a drink or something. Then read the detailed portion at the end of the form talking about Mr. Brown and Mr. Black and tell me what you think about your theory if Mr. Brown and Mr. Black were married and neither was a felon and they had a joint bank account.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
As stupid as it seems, the Supreme Court has ruled that even if both parties can legally possess a firearm it can still be a straw purchase.

For the sake of discussion, can you cite that, please? I'm sure there's ways, but I'd like to know what you're specifically referring to.

I read the instructions for the form, and they clearly state that the wife in this case is not the actual purchaser and cannot answer yes on the form. The person filling out the form cannot answer "yes" unless he/she is the actual purchaser. Instructions clearly state that a purchaser can answer "yes" when intending to give the firearm as a gift. There is no exception for being the recipient of a gift. If husband wants to buy a gun as a gift for his wife he needs to buy it, fill out the form himself as the actual buyer, and then he can give it to his wife.

The Supreme Court case I referred to is Abramski, and here's a link to the Wikipedia article about it:

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

And to clarify my position, it is that I would recommend against participating in the transaction. I did state that the responsibility is on the FFL and the person filling out the 4473, but I would not ship a gun under the circumstances where I knew that the actual buyer intended for someone else to fill out the 4473. I'm not saying it's criminal on the part of the seller, but it is a straw purchase and I would not want to be involved in it.

I'm also not commenting on whether or not I think the law is ridiculous-- I'm just telling it how it is, not how it should be.

First, why is the OP putting a name on the packing other than the FFL? Let them be responsible for telling the FFL it's coming in for them. Second, if there is a concern why not pay to have it sent FFL to FFL and be done with it? Wash your hands of it and let them figure out who signs for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny 3eagles:
If the instrument of payment is in his name, the 4473 must be in his name.

I am not feeling good about this transaction.

Basically it's: "Hey baby - I'll pay the guy - all you gotta do is go in and fill out the paperwork."

If you were a convicted felon this is one way you would get a gun.

Go with your gut.

Call me whatever you want - but for sales this is why I like to consign through local FFLs. I sleep better at night.

YMMV.

-------------------------------

If he is shipping it to an FFL, then it is the receiving FFL's responsibility to do everything legal. I wouldn't worry about it and would ship it directly to the FFL.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
It's a straw purchase...

Here's the deal. Question 11.a. on the 4473 reads in part:

Man, untwist a few strands on the wire cinch for your tinfoil hat and maybe have a drink or something. Then read the detailed portion at the end of the form talking about Mr. Brown and Mr. Black and tell me what you think about your theory if Mr. Brown and Mr. Black were married and neither was a felon and they had a joint bank account.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
As stupid as it seems, the Supreme Court has ruled that even if both parties can legally possess a firearm it can still be a straw purchase.

For the sake of discussion, can you cite that, please? I'm sure there's ways, but I'd like to know what you're specifically referring to.

I read the instructions for the form, and they clearly state that the wife in this case is not the actual purchaser and cannot answer yes on the form. The person filling out the form cannot answer "yes" unless he/she is the actual purchaser. Instructions clearly state that a purchaser can answer "yes" when intending to give the firearm as a gift. There is no exception for being the recipient of a gift. If husband wants to buy a gun as a gift for his wife he needs to buy it, fill out the form himself as the actual buyer, and then he can give it to his wife.

The Supreme Court case I referred to is Abramski, and here's a link to the Wikipedia article about it:

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

And to clarify my position, it is that I would recommend against participating in the transaction. I did state that the responsibility is on the FFL and the person filling out the 4473, but I would not ship a gun under the circumstances where I knew that the actual buyer intended for someone else to fill out the 4473. I'm not saying it's criminal on the part of the seller, but it is a straw purchase and I would not want to be involved in it.

I'm also not commenting on whether or not I think the law is ridiculous-- I'm just telling it how it is, not how it should be.

Thanks for the info. From your link:

quote:

During the purchase, Abramski falsely declared that he is purchasing the gun for himself.

That's not what's happening in the OP's case. We clearly know it's for his wife, the Gunbroker auction winner stated that the wife would be the transferee. She's filling out the 4473. What you're linking us to, and what's going on here are two different things. What happens on Gunbroker has no bearing on the legal part of the process. If both of their names are on the payment check, then where's the problem? If his name is the only one on the payment form sent, that's the only place I can see your concern being valid, and even then, how would it be illegal for a man to pay for his wife's gun if all the paperwork is filed in a lawful manner? If that's true, quite a number of us on this forum are felons.

It might just be easier for you to say "if it makes you uncomfortable, walk." That's surely something I wouldn't argue with.

In the words of JAllen:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
If his name is the only one on the payment form sent, that's the only place I can see your concern being valid, and even then, how would it be illegal for a man to pay for his wife's gun if all the paperwork is filed in a lawful manner? If that's true, quite a number of us on this forum are felons.

.

Even then it's a check written from his account and they are married. Everything in a marriage is considered joint property is it not? I see NOTHING wrong with this transaction. If the guy said, yeah I'm buying the pistol for my neighbor.....or 17 year old brother.....that would be one thing.

A straw purchase would be him buying it for a person that cannot legally buy it. Whoever fills out the 4473 IS the purchaser in the laws eyes, whether the husband gave her the money for it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:

quote:

Originally posted by SSAreGreat:
Personally IMHO I would not sell him the gun. ATF likes to go after the small people. They are easy to persecute. A police officer in VA got excited about a Glock on sale and bought one for his father-in-law. The officer was convicted in federal court of a Straw Purchase.

ouch.

do you happen to know if the father-in-law was a legal gun-owner?

----------------------------

Although this question was already answered by another poster since you asked a question I wanted to answer. Even if the person you are buying the gun for can legally own it, the federal U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is still a straw purchase thanks to the left-wing section of the Supreme Court. The cases referenced below:

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