Straw Purchase

[gm272gs]

It is against the law to do what you describe. If the gun was bought and went through a NICS check with the sole intention that it would be given to someone else at a raffle is illegal. Now if a gun owner had owned a gun for some time and wanted to give it or sell to a club member to raffle off, that is a private transfer and OK in most states.

Well aware of that. That's why I wrote words to the effect "if it were up to me..."

I have been told by folks that all they did was buy a raffle ticket at a dinner and went home with a gun after the dinner. Now mind you, I have never seen this done. I have only heard about it, and never at my gun club.

 

[steelslaver]

Here you could go home with the gun after the dinner with no problem. Here they will check on the phone or if you have a CC permit no check is needed. Filling out the paperwork only takes a couple minutes and any gun club, Ducks unlimited etc, would have an FFL guy in hand.

I am also sure that some normally law abiding organizations have done it other ways and never thought nothing about it.

 

[JJEH]

Here you could go home with the gun after the dinner with no problem. Here they will check on the phone or if you have a CC permit no check is needed. Filling out the paperwork only takes a couple minutes and any gun club, Ducks unlimited etc, would have an FFL guy in hand.

I am also sure that some normally law abiding organizations have done it other ways and never thought nothing about it.

NICS runs 24/7, so if you win the raffle at 2200h you still can file paperwork + background check and would be good to go.

 

[bluegrassarms]

Here you could go home with the gun after the dinner with no problem. Here they will check on the phone or if you have a CC permit no check is needed. Filling out the paperwork only takes a couple minutes and any gun club, Ducks unlimited etc, would have an FFL guy in hand.

I am also sure that some normally law abiding organizations have done it other ways and never thought nothing about it.

Which, unbelievably, would be a violation of the FFL's license. ATF still (IMO due to the pre-historic nature of some of the GCA) ties licenses to premises.

I can sell you a gun at my office. I can't meet you somewhere and sell you that gun even if I do the exact same paperwork and NICS checks. If the club has a FFL license for that premises it's fine, if not technically you'd have to go to that FFL holder's place of business on his license.

 

[bluegrassarms]

The straw purchase law has to be the grayest, murkiest part of the gun laws and desperately needs a "bright line" test for clarification.

For example as has been discussed buying for a "gift" is perfectly legal, yet the form could easily be interpreted to make it seem illegal due to the wording. For reference here are the 4473 instructions for that question:

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer:
For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner) . You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/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 isNOT THE ACTUAL TRANS-FEREE/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 transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer "YES" to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), , or (x). Please note: 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.

So IMO the purchase of the rifle for your nephew COULD be entirely legal, as it was a "gift" as defined in the instructions. You were buying it, it was your money, so long as you had no reason to believe he was unable to pass the NICS check.

It centers around whether it's YOUR money or his. Of course it's impossible for a dealer to know that, so most just say "forget it I don't want any trouble with ATF" and nix the transaction.

The problem is the regs and the law are subtly contradictory and ask for FFLs to make decisions based on information they cannot possibly have. I can't give someone truth serum to know if it's REALLY a gift or not and whose money it REALLY is, yet those are the distinctions I'm asked to make. Most dealers just avoid "gift" purchases b/c of the chance someone is lying and the gun ends up with a criminal.

The laws on the straw purchases and what constitutes "intent" and thus if someone is operating as a dealer without a license desperately need to be reformed. This SCOTUS case could be quite interesting b/c they could rule that "straw purchase" doesn't mean just buying it for someone else but buying it for someone else SPECIFICALLY to avoid them having the NICS check done.

I think ATF would prefer the simpler ban on anyone buying a gun for anyone else, period, ending gift purchases. It makes things cleaner legally no doubt, but it's somewhat heinous to tell a grandfather he can't buy a 22 rifle for his grandson to me.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Key to this case will be the intent of the law. Did Congress intend to prohibit "straw purchases" to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons; or did Congress intend to prohibit "straw purchases" in order to track/trace firearms owners?

If the intent is to keep firearms from prohibited persons, then any subsequent transfer to a lawful (non-prohibited) persons should not be illegal. If SCOTUS determines that the intent is/was to track/trace gun owners, then Abramski's side is in trouble.

In this case, it is important to note that Abramski didn't just take money from his uncle and then give him the pistol. Instead, they visited an FFL to conduct the transfer. The uncle filed out a 4473 and underwent a bg check before taking possession of the pistol from his nephew.

This is what the NRA calls a "check-box felony." Never was there any attempt/intent to deliver a firearm to a prohibited person or subvert the bg check process. Indeed, both the initial transferee (Abramski) and the secondary transferee (Uncle) both underwent the bg check/4473 process via a FFL.

In the Abramski case, the nephew was gifting partial value of the firearm to his uncle. As an LEO, Abramski qualified for the reduced pricing offered by the mfg (Glock). He was passing along these savings as a gift to his uncle. Without the gift of partial value, the uncle would have paid full retail value for the pistol (approx $550 at the time when Abramski acquired the Glock at $400). Again, both parties underwent the bg check/4473 process via FFL at each transfer during the process of Abramski gifting the $150 discount to his uncle.

Given that both transfrees underwent the 4473/bg check process, even if Congress's intent is/was tracking gun owners, the intent of the law was never jeopardized in this case.

 

[Bartman3562]

Really simple. If the person doing the 4473 is going to be owner of gun, ok. If person is getting gun as gift for anyone as long as they know person is legal to own gun, ok. If they buy for someone else who can't pass NICS or they will be reimbursed for purchase price, then it is a felony.

 

[bluegrassarms]

Key to this case will be the intent of the law. Did Congress intend to prohibit "straw purchases" to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons; or did Congress intend to prohibit "straw purchases" in order to track/trace firearms owners?

If the intent is to keep firearms from prohibited persons, then any subsequent transfer to a lawful (non-prohibited) persons should not be illegal. If SCOTUS determines that the intent is/was to track/trace gun owners, then Abramski's side is in trouble.

In this case, it is important to note that Abramski didn't just take money from his uncle and then give him the pistol. Instead, they visited an FFL to conduct the transfer. The uncle filed out a 4473 and underwent a bg check before taking possession of the pistol from his nephew.

This is what the NRA calls a "check-box felony." Never was there any attempt/intent to deliver a firearm to a prohibited person or subvert the bg check process. Indeed, both the initial transferee (Abramski) and the secondary transferee (Uncle) both underwent the bg check/4473 process via a FFL.

In the Abramski case, the nephew was gifting partial value of the firearm to his uncle. As an LEO, Abramski qualified for the reduced pricing offered by the mfg (Glock). He was passing along these savings as a gift to his uncle. Without the gift of partial value, the uncle would have paid full retail value for the pistol (approx $550 at the time when Abramski acquired the Glock at $400). Again, both parties underwent the bg check/4473 process via FFL at each transfer during the process of Abramski gifting the $150 discount to his uncle.

Given that both transfrees underwent the 4473/bg check process, even if Congress's intent is/was tracking gun owners, the intent of the law was never jeopardized in this case.

Excellent post and summary of the case.

My question is why ATF is pushing this one so hard. They only pursue a tiny percentage of people who have lied on a 4473, esp. since as soon as someone flags as a felon in NICS they know there's an excellent chance the person has lied on the form and they know right where they are even standing at that moment.

I'm curious, do you have any thoughts as to why they are so doggedly pursuing this case? It doesn't seem like the best test case for them unless they very much want to establish the "check box felony" as legitimate, and I don't get that b/c they pursue of their own volition a very small number of them.

 

[blujax01]

Smokindog and I had a discussion about this and don't you know, the next time I was at work, dude walks in and says he needs to buy a shotgun for his uncle. I told him I cannot sell one to him under those circumstances and my boss told me he had talked to the guy earlier who said it was his intention to buy the shotgun and take his uncle hunting. Further, we would not refuse a sale simply because of the way a guy misspoke when he made his sentence. I told my boss that if he wanted to complete the transaction to help himself. I was not going to put my name and signature on that 4473. I went into the back room and waited for the fight. It never came. The boss came to me and said I was right to be cautious and he intended to convey to me that if a person says something like that, we should ask a few more questions to get clarification before we made our decision. All well and good, I said, but if it happens again I'll simply refer the customer to you for special handling.

 

[smokindog]

As pointed out, the instructions for the form include an EXAMPLE where the purchase of a firearm as a gift is legal. The issue if the source of the currency!!!!!

I'm still jealous

Smokindog and I had a discussion about this and don't you know, the next time I was at work, dude walks in and says he needs to buy a shotgun for his uncle. I told him I cannot sell one to him under those circumstances and my boss told me he had talked to the guy earlier who said it was his intention to buy the shotgun and take his uncle hunting. Further, we would not refuse a sale simply because of the way a guy misspoke when he made his sentence. I told my boss that if he wanted to complete the transaction to help himself. I was not going to put my name and signature on that 4473. I went into the back room and waited for the fight. It never came. The boss came to me and said I was right to be cautious and he intended to convey to me that if a person says something like that, we should ask a few more questions to get clarification before we made our decision. All well and good, I said, but if it happens again I'll simply refer the customer to you for special handling.

 

[Lil' LadySmith]

Buying one as a gift out here is difficult unless you want to go through the transfer and 10 day waiting period TWICE.

My guy wanted to get me a 22 for Christmas one year so we went to buy it. We were both there as we figured I'd fill out the info since it would be mine and then he'd pay for it. No good. I had to pay for my own present and then he reimbursed me. Only way he could pay for it was to fill out the paper work and pay the fees himself and then after 10 days we pick it up and then I fill out the paperwork, pay the fees AGAIN and wait another 10 days. Both of us were legal to buy/own as well.

 

[Smitty357]

I hope parents dont go out and buy a vehicle for their teenagers.

We can only imagine what would happen when the teenagers get their hands on such a dangerous weapon.

 

[EvilBetty]

dude walks in and says he needs to buy a shotgun for his uncle. I told him I cannot sell one to him under those circumstances and my boss told me he had talked to the guy earlier who said it was his intention to buy the shotgun and take his uncle hunting. Further, we would not refuse a sale simply because of the way a guy misspoke when he made his sentence. I told my boss that if he wanted to complete the transaction to help himself.

If I had been that customer I would have needed some damage control from your boss to ever return to that shop again.

Isn't there a local ATF agent you can call to get clarification on these situations?

Anytime I hit one of my local FFL's with something they haven't dealt with before, or don't feel comfortable with at first, they call a ATF agent. Usually they have an answer within a day.

Had this happen buying a gun from my cousin who is across state line, and when conducting a private transfer through mail through an FFL in another state. Both of them called up the ATF, got clarification, then completed my transfers.

 

[wittmeba]

They are looking for a straw purchase.ie you're buying it for them because they can't pass.

This should be very correct. But I think the Libs/anti-gunners are trying to cloud the matter and control gun purchases with fear and dirtying up the laws.

The OP's comment is where both are OK to own a gun. The LEO was doing this to help the other financially.

If two people want to do gun business and both are approved there shouldn't be any government necessary in the transaction.

Straw purchases take place all the time. Look at those who buy bulk/lots of material/hardware then sell them at profits on the internet. Straw purchases are not the problem - it is the fact that a gun in involved.

 

[gfy1960]

My question is why ATF is pushing this one so hard.

I'm curious, do you have any thoughts as to why they are so doggedly pursuing this case? It doesn't seem like the best test case for them unless they very much want to establish the "check box felony" as legitimate, and I don't get that b/c they pursue of their own volition a very small number of them.

Relationships between federal agencies and some local authorities are "stressed at best". My feeling is they are flexing their muscles. "Doesn't matter who you are. WE will get you." JMO

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Key to this case will be the intent of the law. Did Congress intend to prohibit "straw purchases" to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons; or did Congress intend to prohibit "straw purchases" in order to track/trace firearms owners?

If the intent is to keep firearms from prohibited persons, then any subsequent transfer to a lawful (non-prohibited) persons should not be illegal. If SCOTUS determines that the intent is/was to track/trace gun owners, then Abramski's side is in trouble.

In this case, it is important to note that Abramski didn't just take money from his uncle and then give him the pistol. Instead, they visited an FFL to conduct the transfer. The uncle filed out a 4473 and underwent a bg check before taking possession of the pistol from his nephew.

This is what the NRA calls a "check-box felony." Never was there any attempt/intent to deliver a firearm to a prohibited person or subvert the bg check process. Indeed, both the initial transferee (Abramski) and the secondary transferee (Uncle) both underwent the bg check/4473 process via a FFL.

In the Abramski case, the nephew was gifting partial value of the firearm to his uncle. As an LEO, Abramski qualified for the reduced pricing offered by the mfg (Glock). He was passing along these savings as a gift to his uncle. Without the gift of partial value, the uncle would have paid full retail value for the pistol (approx $550 at the time when Abramski acquired the Glock at $400). Again, both parties underwent the bg check/4473 process via FFL at each transfer during the process of Abramski gifting the $150 discount to his uncle.

Given that both transfrees underwent the 4473/bg check process, even if Congress's intent is/was tracking gun owners, the intent of the law was never jeopardized in this case.

Excellent post and summary of the case.

My question is why ATF is pushing this one so hard. They only pursue a tiny percentage of people who have lied on a 4473, esp. since as soon as someone flags as a felon in NICS they know there's an excellent chance the person has lied on the form and they know right where they are even standing at that moment.

I'm curious, do you have any thoughts as to why they are so doggedly pursuing this case? It doesn't seem like the best test case for them unless they very much want to establish the "check box felony" as legitimate, and I don't get that b/c they pursue of their own volition a very small number of them.

I think it is a GREAT case for them to use-everything is put down in writing. Abramski is guilty of evading the excise tax on the firearm. A dealer down here got into BIG trouble a while back as he was buying LEO guns (and not paying the excise tax) and then selling them otherwise legitimately to non LEO's. Question: Did the uncle just undergo a background check or did he actually fill out a 4473. If he filled out a 4473 then it came from the dealer NOT his nephew (as transferor) and was in fact a straw purhase as defined. (stupid as it may be). He's better hope that SCOTUS decides that the intention of COngress was not just to track gun ownership but to keep them out of the hands of criminals. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If that nephew had bought the gun (with uncle's money) and then given it to the uncle later out of sight, the gun would be on the nephew's name, the uncle would have the gun and the only easily provable crime would be the tax fraud to which the nephew and uncle would both be guilty of. Believe me this goes on a lot and not a few LEO's have gotten into trouble by buying LEO-only guns with their buddy's money to save the buddy the excise tax. If Abramski filled out the 4473 he should have paid for the gun and left-what he choose to do later would be open to conjecture but I can tell you they keep track of those LEO guns and if it turns up and they want to be dicks and start digging they can bust them for tax evasion-and if they think they can get the dealer they will go after him too.
Me-I'm wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too old to be a test case.

 

[flundertaker]

Really simple. If the person doing the 4473 is going to be owner of gun, ok. If person is getting gun as gift for anyone as long as they know person is legal to own gun, ok. If they buy for someone else who can't pass NICS or they will be reimbursed for purchase price, then it is a felony.

This is my understanding as well. People can buy guns for other people as long as the person they are buying it for could pass the NCIC themselves.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

[flundertaker]

I think it is a GREAT case for them to use-everything is put down in writing. Abramski is guilty of evading the excise tax on the firearm. A dealer down here got into BIG trouble a while back as he was buying LEO guns (and not paying the excise tax) and then selling them otherwise legitimately to non LEO's. Question: Did the uncle just undergo a background check or did he actually fill out a 4473. If he filled out a 4473 then it came from the dealer NOT his nephew (as transferor) and was in fact a straw purhase as defined. (stupid as it may be). He's better hope that SCOTUS decides that the intention of COngress was not just to track gun ownership but to keep them out of the hands of criminals. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If that nephew had bought the gun (with uncle's money) and then given it to the uncle later out of sight, the gun would be on the nephew's name, the uncle would have the gun and the only easily provable crime would be the tax fraud to which the nephew and uncle would both be guilty of. Believe me this goes on a lot and not a few LEO's have gotten into trouble by buying LEO-only guns with their buddy's money to save the buddy the excise tax. If Abramski filled out the 4473 he should have paid for the gun and left-what he choose to do later would be open to conjecture but I can tell you they keep track of those LEO guns and if it turns up and they want to be dicks and start digging they can bust them for tax evasion-and if they think they can get the dealer they will go after him too.
Me-I'm wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too old to be a test case.

Elliots gunshop in NOLA? I heard they were using LEOs IDs to buy glocks cheap and then selling them to non leos. Back in the day I bought a couple guns there but never a glock. Now maybe if they passed some of the langiappe on to customer.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

[Mcwsky09]

This SCOTUS case could be quite interesting b/c they could rule that "straw purchase" doesn't mean just buying it for someone else but buying it for someone else SPECIFICALLY to avoid them having the NICS check done.

Not sure how the overall court is currently leaning - but couldn't this also result in going the other way and a "clarification" that ANY cases where the person who ultimately takes possession of the firearm MUST be the one who fills out the 4473 at the point of physical transfer from the FFL to the owner?
When I bought my wife her 10/22 - she filled out the paper work and it is her rifle (even painted the checkering red and put Hello Kitty stickers on it) - but I paid for it. Even if she had paid for it with a credit card or check etc with her name on it - or an account with both our names on - in the end it still would have been me making the actual payment.

A straw purchase should only be a case where there is conscious intent to provide a firearm to a person who is prohibited such that the instant check would deny the transfer.
Of course the difficulty, as pointed out, is that it can be impossible for the FFL to know with any certainty whether or not the person filling out the form is being truthful or not. And while I am not saying the FFL should base their decision to sell or not solely on the form - they also should not be held responsible if the buyer is committing fraud when they fill out the form.
Take a similar case - if I am underage for buying alcohol the seller should check ID and ideally be able to determine if I have provided a fake ID - but how would they ever know that I sent someone who is old enough into the store to buy it for me?

Instead of the current system what we should have is some way to positively ID those people who are prohibited from firearm ownership. But we could spend all day and more trying to come up with a system that criminals would find a way to around.

 

[old bear]

I did learn once again not to talk so much.

My policy is never lie, but never volunteer to much information. Over the years it's been amazing how well this has served me.