quote:

LGS say NO, that would be a 'Straw Purchase', indicates he will not accept the payment and ultimately nixes the deal as she couldn't pay. The ONLY difference in the OP's deal is that the payment/sale would be occurring separately from the transfer. As far as the law is concerned, there is NO difference....Straw Purchase!

I understand and agree, with qualifications. This very same act has resulted in problems for dealers in the counties around Chicago/Cook County, although not for the purchasers involved.

The basic problem for the strict interpretation of this regulation is that many of us have our marital finances totally comingled. My wife and I use a common bank account, both of us have direct deposits into that account. If I write a check on that account whose money covered the check?
If I draw out cash, where did it originate? (In fact, as no doubt common in may marriages, the cash in my wife's hands probably did come from my wallet.)

The simple solution to the problem above is that before entering the GS I hand the money to my wife and my part in the transaction is merely advisory.

If you bought the gun, go pick it up and gift wrap it and then present it!

You know, Lou, I was out of line and would like to apologize for the tone I took with you last night. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is something I'm trying to work on. That isn't the way to do it.

OK, let's go to ATF form 4473 and see what it says.
Pay attention to this; "A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party."

ATF Form 4473 Question 11 a.

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 you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.)

NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.

Actual TRANSFEREE/buyer examples: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may not be prohibited). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/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 buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift(with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black), Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer "YES" to question 11.a. However, the transferor/seller may not transfer a firearm to any person he/she knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), (n) or (x). EXCEPTION: If a person is picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, he/she is not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

Sigh.

Can we all agree that the point of the 4473 and any background check is to ensure that the person taking possession is to determine if that person is prohibited?

After all, that's what it says at the top:
"WARNING: You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State law. The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited from receiving a firearm"

Does the government care about who spent the money or who ends up in possession of the firearm? Considering it says "receive" not "purchase" I think we have the answer.

A true straw purchase is person A giving person B money to purchase and take possession of the firearm, then hand it over to person A.

Just apply a bit of logic. Not that anyone who thinks this is a straw purchase will be dissuaded by logic.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
OK, let's go to ATF form 4473 and see what it says.
Pay attention to this; "A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party."

ATF Form 4473 Question 11 a.

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 you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.)

NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.

Actual TRANSFEREE/buyer examples: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may not be prohibited). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/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 buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift(with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black), Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer "YES" to question 11.a. However, the transferor/seller may not transfer a firearm to any person he/she knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), (n) or (x). EXCEPTION: If a person is picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, he/she is not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

What you are missing here is that the instructions are telling you to do what I said to do for a gift; buy the gun, fill out the 4473, take possession, and then give it to the recipient. In the example the instructions give of Mr. Brown buying a gun with his own money to give as a gift to Mr. Black, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer. NOT Mr. Black. They are telling you that the person paying for the gun has to fill out the 4473, and it's okay if he gives it as a gift afterwards. IT IS NOT SAYING THAT THE RECIPIENT SHOULD FILL OUT THE 4473.

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
Sigh.

Can we all agree that the point of the 4473 and any background check is to ensure that the person taking possession is to determine if that person is prohibited?

After all, that's what it says at the top:
"WARNING: You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State law. The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited from receiving a firearm"

Does the government care about who spent the money or who ends up in possession of the firearm? Considering it says "receive" not "purchase" I think we have the answer.

A true straw purchase is person A giving person B money to purchase and take possession of the firearm, then hand it over to person A.

Just apply a bit of logic. Not that anyone who thinks this is a straw purchase will be dissuaded by logic.

We can probably all agree that preventing prohibited persons from purchasing guns SHOULD BE the point of all this. But we cannot agree that this IS the point. And it's not what the law says. Quite the contrary, the law clearly states that it can be a straw purchase even when both parties could legally possess the gun.

I've cited with a link the Supreme Court case. What you think is logical has nothing to do with the law, and the Court doesn't care about your logic.

Again, I'm not even commenting on how it should be or how stupid it is-I'm just trying to explain how it actually is at this point in time.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
You know, Lou, I was out of line and would like to apologize for the tone I took with you last night. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is something I'm trying to work on. That isn't the way to do it.

Apology accepted, but really not necessary. I took no offense, but I do appreciate the effort and intent of your apology.

How do some of you even cross the street? Good god! Relax gifts are allowed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mustang-PaPa:
Your sending the gun to an FFL aren't you?

This first response, answered the OP's question.
The FFL is the Transfer of the firearm.

The FFL must maintain the records and is responsible for the ATF form 4473.

Now a question to those which would oppose sending the gun to an FFL for transfer.

Imagine you are the high bidder with a screaming good deal for a gun on an auction site.
How would you feel if the seller refused to send the gun to an FFL believing it was a straw purchase?

I have no reason to believe this is the case here.

However, I would hope the seller here communicates his concern to the winner of the auction and resolve this issue appropriately.

Interesting read on the link SCOTUS descision involving the former cop buying for his out of state uncle.

To me, it really highlights the idiocy of our myriad of laws and how common sense is at times totally suspended by irrelevant, academic thought. What doesn’t surprise me is that the late great Justice Antonin Scalia called the spade a spade in his dissent.

For those who didn’t read the link, here are the key points...


-Nephew is security guard, can get the blue label price for a Glock in VA.
-The accused/convicted tells his uncle about the deal and asks if uncle wants him to get one for the uncle.
-Uncle says “sure” and sends nephew a check to cover cost of the gun noting “For Glock 19” on the memo field of the check.
-Nephew buys gun, answering that he is actual buyer on 4473.
-Nephew then transfers to out of state uncle via FFL in PA.

Time passes...

-Nephew house gets searched as he is suspect in (unrelated) bank robbery case
-Documentation of G19 purchase and transfer for uncle discovered in search
-Documentation used to pursue the unlawful purchase charge.


So it was in the absolute most technical terms a straw purchase (or actually the charge is falsely answering).


Here is the rub- it (apparently) all would have been moot if Nephew had not received check prior to purchasing the gun. If Nephew fronted the cash and then was reimbursed by uncle it could have been argued Nephew was purchaser and used his own funds to do so, then sold after the fact to uncle as a private sale, and properly went through an FFL due to crossing state lines.


Scalia pointed out the the legal “intent” was to keeps guns away from those unable to legally purchase and these events had no bearing on that point. Therefore the false answer was immaterial.

The liberal majority decided to go with a strict interpretation of the laws wording and focus on what they believed to be a false answer and bring the hammer down, regardless of the big picture or whether the eventual recipient was barred from possession.


Side note- I find it particularly interesting how left leaning Justices are willing to manufacture wholesale rulings with no basis whatsoever in the constitution based on their assumed “intent” of the documents actual words and seem particularly loathsome to any strict interpretation when it favors conservative ideals. Yet when ideals are reversed, the interpretations and intent have completely different value.


So ruling is what it is. Fine.



Now here is where I take particular exception...

How many folks outright lie on the 4473, get denied by NICS due to felony records or other disqualifiers. Yet NO ENFORCEMENT IS EVER TAKEN by the feds? Everything I have read is that the federal pursuit of charges in such cases is infitisimally small, a small fraction of a single percentage point.

Yet in THIS case, they chose to essentially railroad the Nephew on what amounts to an almost irrelevant technicality.


While no mention is made of the outcome on the robbery case in the link provided to the SCOTUS ruling, my spidey-sense started tingling and suggests to me they went after him for the firearm “violation” when they couldn’t make a case for the bank robbery.


Now IF that is true, then we have just one more instance of the government with its unlimited resources singling out joe citizen for some contrived matter driven not by any need to protect the people or enforce legitimate laws, but instead to prove government dominance and save face after screwing something up (Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy, etc...). To me, that is a troubling abuse of authority and power.


.
.
.


Now, not wanting to be labeled a tin hatter or conspiracy theorist, I decide to google the bank robbery just before I hit “Post Now” after typing out the above.

Not shocked or amazed to find that it turns out the Feds dropped the ball on the bank robbery case, were not able to provide evidence or whatever to prosecutor who dropped the bank robbery charges.

Two months after being released over the bank robbery charge, all of a sudden Feds are back with a hard on for the guy over the “straw purchase”.


Yup, you were in our sights and by God we will get you one way or another....



Links to bank robbery and subsequent firearms charges...

http://www.roanoke.com/webmin/...cf-0de89d959961.html

http://www.roanoke.com/webmin/...e6-8780a605ed25.html

Great post 911Boss
Thanks

So if I understand correctly, I can legally purchase a firearm at an FFL and immediately gift said firearm to my girlfriend who didn't complete a Form 4473, yet I can not gift her the money to purchase the exact same firearm even though she would actually be completing a Form 4473 at the point of sale?

OK, what did we decide?

Agree to disagree? Is anybody who chimed in an actual lawyer? Sometimes common sense and the letter of the law don't overlap.

hjs,
That is right.

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
So if I understand correctly, I can legally purchase a firearm at an FFL and immediately gift said firearm to my girlfriend who didn't complete a Form 4473, yet I can not gift her the money to purchase the exact same firearm even though she would actually be completing a Form 4473 at the point of sale?

I don't believe your last part is correct. You can do it. What you can't do is "gift" her the money to buy the gun and have her fill out the 4473 then give the gun to you. That would be a straw purchase to me. Follow the money? But I'm not a lawyer.

It's a textbook straw purchase example. Textbook.

Those that don't believe so, after they have followed through with a similar transaction should contact an ATF agent, submit to an interview and explain that he knows the buyer was married, that his wife was going to pick it up, fill out the 4473 with the appropriate yes answers and then wait for the ATF agent's reaction. You know, just to confirm that he was right all along. And when possible, post here about the experience.

Of course, no harm to further explain that the couple lived in a community property state or with tenancy by the entireties or whatever else might come to mind. I'm certain it will make things so much clearer. Because such family law intricacies usually make all the difference in Federal cases.

After the obligatory standing ovation from the field office's employees, the seller should take a bow. Not because it is expected, only as a courtesy.

Fwiw, I prefer aluminum foil hats. Bright side out. So much more efficient than regular, run-of-the-mill tinfoil.

Given the level of concern, and rightly so, and no one here really knowing for sure how it could ultimately be interpreted or construed, why not just call the ATF and ask them? Have them email you the answer in writing if they say it is ok to move forward with the transaction and remove all doubt?

If they say no, then there you go and in your right to cancel the transaction.

Moral of the story...never get married

Are we arriving at a consensu or are we just going around in circles?