-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Police officer, gun store owner charged with illegal purchases
- Thread starter kenny
- Start date
DocWalker
Regular Member
Must have been trained under the "Fast & Furious" program.
Holder will give him a job.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
FUQ, please.
It's hard to tell if the comment about purchasers needing to be the actual buyer applies to the straw purchases or the scheme to sell the guns online. My Spidey Sense tells me that the intervening sentence about online gun sales is there more for editorial content than anything else.
stay safe.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Under the strict letter of the law one cannot buy a gun with the intention of selling it to a ffl who will sell it for a profit which is split. If the profit is split then how can they say he is not the buyer...he did not buy it for someone else, he bought it to make $$ on the deal.
Now, I don't agree with this one ... seems as if you see a good deal on a gun you cannot make some $$ on it.
One can sell 5 guns a yr w/o a license under the law....so would 5 guns be OK to do this with? And I think that the 5 gun limit was meant to be "selling to a non-ffl".
I would think that this is more of a civil matter (violating terms of LEO discount) and a matter for disciplinary action w/i the dept. than a criminal one.
Maybe a case of fraud ...depending on the LEO discount ... but I've never seen a fraud complaint (like employees w/discounts selling to friends or for profit) .. but they may exist.
We will see.
Now, I don't agree with this one ... seems as if you see a good deal on a gun you cannot make some $$ on it.
One can sell 5 guns a yr w/o a license under the law....so would 5 guns be OK to do this with? And I think that the 5 gun limit was meant to be "selling to a non-ffl".
I would think that this is more of a civil matter (violating terms of LEO discount) and a matter for disciplinary action w/i the dept. than a criminal one.
Maybe a case of fraud ...depending on the LEO discount ... but I've never seen a fraud complaint (like employees w/discounts selling to friends or for profit) .. but they may exist.
We will see.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
A straw purchase is buying a gun for someone with a disability. There was no disability here, other than the guns were special deals for LE, or military. I see this one getting tossed, or overturned. There is no reason a person cannot buy a gun and resell it at a profit, as long as the sale is to a legal buyer. This most this case is a breach of contract, and when did that fall under BATF.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
A common offense charged under section 922(a)(6) is the “straw purchase,” which entails a material misrepresentation as to the identity of the actual firearm purchaser. See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 605 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e find the act of falsifying the identity of the ‘actual buyer’ on Form 4473 to be a violation of § 922(a)(6)”); United States v. Blake, 394 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir. 2005) (purchasing firearms on behalf of another for “some quick money” is a “straw purchase”); United States v. Ortiz, 318 F.3d 1030, 1037 (11th Cir. 2003) (“‘straw purchases’ equally misrepresent the identity of the purchaser in a firearm sale and violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)” and occur when an unlawful purchaser uses a lawful “straw man” purchaser to obtain a firearm). Although frequently charged in such cases, section 922(a)(6) on its face does not prohibit straw purchases, see United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286, 295 (5th Cir. 1997), and section 924(a)(1)(A) may be charged instead, see United States v. Wilson, 175 F. App’x 294 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curium) (finding that falsely claiming on Form 4473 to be the actual purchaser of the firearm is a violation of section 924(a)(1)(A)).
http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Primers/Primer_Firearms.pdf
http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Primers/Primer_Firearms.pdf
KBCraig
Regular Member
"Straw purchase" is a strawman, in this case.
First, the definition of "straw purchase" has never required that the "actual purchaser" be someone under legal disability. Buying for someone with a 100% clean background who simply doesn't want his name on a 4473, is still a straw purchase.
But, I'm curious how this actually shakes out. If he was using his discount to split the profit with the dealer, that could certainly be a straw purchase, but it's also "engaging in the business of buying and selling firearms without a license".
It's not illegal to buy a gun intending to resell it, even at a profit, even if you intend to resell it ten minutes after buying it. It is illegal to "engage in the business", which really isn't defined, but they can demonstrate through repeated purchases resales, especially for profit. (Profit isn't the only factor, and isn't required, but it is a factor.)
First, the definition of "straw purchase" has never required that the "actual purchaser" be someone under legal disability. Buying for someone with a 100% clean background who simply doesn't want his name on a 4473, is still a straw purchase.
But, I'm curious how this actually shakes out. If he was using his discount to split the profit with the dealer, that could certainly be a straw purchase, but it's also "engaging in the business of buying and selling firearms without a license".
It's not illegal to buy a gun intending to resell it, even at a profit, even if you intend to resell it ten minutes after buying it. It is illegal to "engage in the business", which really isn't defined, but they can demonstrate through repeated purchases resales, especially for profit. (Profit isn't the only factor, and isn't required, but it is a factor.)
Cite, please. I thought that was a myth.
davidmcbeth
Banned
no myth .. no cite either ... one can sell his/her own guns ... no ffl needed until over 5 a year ... and i think the atf/law looks the other way in some instances (elderly guy selling his collection)
thats why all these gun-show loopholes are bogus ideas ... enforce the laws on the books ...
The above is a combination of law and legend.
You can liquidate your entire personal collection, selling off every gun to individual purchasers, even at a ridiculous profit, even if it is hundreds or thousands of guns, and not need a Federal Firearms License. It doesn't matter if you're elderly, and it isn't that ATF "looks the other way". 18 USC 921(a)(22) defines "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" (one of the elements that requires you to have an FFL). The law explicitly excludes "liquidating a personal firearms collection".
As far as how many you can buy and resell without requiring a dealer's license, there is no magic number. You need a license if you are engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. You do not need a license if you only make occasional sales, exchanges, or purchase of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or to sell all or part of your personal collection [18 USC 921(a)(21)(C)].
Of course there is a lot of room for interpretation in all of that - but there is no magic limit of 5 (or any other number).
paramedic70002
Regular Member
Technical law violation based on stupid laws that criminalize an act to stop another criminal act.
They should have known better, especially the FFL, but I don't think they deserve a felony for it.
If the LEO had been a partner in the gun shop, would it have been legal?
Who turned them in? Most likely somebody who got dissed in the dealings, less likely they were concerned about the law per se.
They should have known better, especially the FFL, but I don't think they deserve a felony for it.
If the LEO had been a partner in the gun shop, would it have been legal?
Who turned them in? Most likely somebody who got dissed in the dealings, less likely they were concerned about the law per se.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I am assuming that it was the gun shop who gave him a LEO discount was the complaining party.
Gun shops should stop giving LEO discounts ~ I never gave them any discounts. Especially in my state where police organizations whole hardheartedly supported PA13-3. FFLs should simply discontinue selling to governmental parties until PA13-3's provisions are attacked by police organizations and not supported by LEOs...all LEOs.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Actually, as straw purchase is merely buying the firearm on behalf of another person, with or without disability. For example, a person buying a firearm from my Exchange on behalf of someone who has no disability to own a firearm, but also has no Exchange privileges, would be a straw purchase. Folks have tried it with me. It is a no-go.
Most, but not all, straw purchases are on behalf of a prohibited person.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
What type of disability? Are felony convictions now considered a disability? I know stupidity is, but you still don't qualify for a handicapped parking placard.
ATF makes it clear " “straw purchases,” the illegal purchase of a firearm by one person for another. "
Exactly: the illegal purchase of a firearm by one person for another, as opposed to a legal purchase of a firearm by one person for another.
It is illegal to purchase cigarettes for a minor. It is legal to purchase cigarettes for your mother, even if you have no intention of smoking one first.
That said, I believe ATF is now purposely misusing the term "straw purchase" to make all such purchases illegal. The current 1173 form reflects this. This is a fairly recent change.
Last edited:
Hopefully you merely forgot to include the indicatror that your question was sarcasm.
If not, PM me and I'll explain it to you.
stay safe.
Did you mean 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 buyer if you are acquiring the firearms(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.
And where you sign on page 2:
I certify that my answers in Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.
Last edited:
Yeah, thanks; typed too fast. That's the question which is NOT a "straw purchase" but has now made it impossible to do a LEGAL 'buying for someone else who could.'
davidmcbeth
Banned
http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/54048.jpg
I think I saw this guy once when I was a dealer .... he answered no, so I sold to him .. he was a good customer