Police officer, gun store owner charged with illegal purchases

But do they define "buying for another person?" Because I mean if I'm buying it for myself to then resell it to someone else, even if I know who that other person already is, I have still technically bought it for myself to make a profit. It is so vague that it seems like it can go either way depending on the judge/jury.

The crime is not really buying the gun on behalf of someone else. The crime is lying on the form. If you answer no, we are not supposed to sell you the firearm. It would be a violation of the regulations (and potentially a crime) if we did. If you answer yes, but are actually purchasing it with the intent of recouping the money and turning over the firearm to another who was the person who really intended to acquire the gun, then you have lied on the form.

I don't know of anyone who has been prosecuted under this law, however it must be a real bear to prove that the buyer intended not to be the actual purchaser, but was doing so on behalf of another. I suspect they are counting on the question having a deterrent effect on FFLs and customers. I know that I have declined a sale specifically because I had reason to believe that the person who presented himself as the buyer was really buying the firearm for someone else who did not have Exchange privileges.

One person looked at several firearms and chose one. When I tried to close the sale, another person said he was buying the firearm. I asked who the firearm was for. The customer indicated the person who checked out the firearms and selected one. I informed the customer that I could not sell him the firearm since it looked like he was buying it for another person. We didn't even get to the 4473.

Had he said something like, "Oh, it's his birthday present, and I am just letting him pick out one to his liking," I would have gone ahead with a clear conscience. However, I believe it was a straw purchase since neither of them argued the point.

I can't be 100% sure, but I ain't risking our license or a jail term if I have "reason to believe" that the transaction is a straw purchase.

BTW, I think the law is moronic. I just ain't gonna break it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

How can a person not be the buyer, if indeed they are the buyer? The question is stupid, and should easily be unconstitutional. If I buy a gallon of milk for my neighbor while at the store I AM THE ACTUAL BUYER. Keep in mind a straw PURCHASE, is a purchase to get around disabilities, NOT transferring or manufacturer deals. No matter who the gun is transferred to legally or illegally the person paying and receiving the firearm IS the buyer. The only way for the government to make the claim they are is if the buyer was actually there paying for the gun while the person receiving the gun is standing there at the same time. And if that is a crime then the FFL would be party also. BTW this takes place often with our politicians.

In this case the law is clearly being abused, and I believe will end up being a spanking eventually if it makes it to SCOTUS.

Im not sure how an LEO thought this would last. Like it hate it or love it, the law is the law. Im sure a lot of people buy a first gun for their kid or spouse etc. That's hard if not impossible to prove but buying BULK LEO stamped firearms....... they had to have known that would go south at some point.

Kopis said:

Im not sure how an LEO thought this would last. Like it hate it or love it, the law is the law. Im sure a lot of people buy a first gun for their kid or spouse etc. That's hard if not impossible to prove but buying BULK LEO stamped firearms....... they had to have known that would go south at some point.

Click to expand...

There were no disabilities to the purchase, by either the buyer, or the person the gun was resold to. What they are stamped as has nothing to do with federal law. The only thing they were getting around was manufacturer deals/discounts, which in some states are illegal. Some states have ruled that special dispensation for official government status on a personal level is official misconduct, even if the offer comes from the other party.

the officer WAS the buyer, whether he was using his money or the money from another. The only question is whether the person the gun eventually ended up with was a legal gun buyer, and in this case it was. The FFL will be asked in trial WHO the person was that purchased the firearm. That person will be the buyer. Not to mention that the question on the form is a clear violation of 5th amendment, as it is used.

WW, You keep repeating this, so I don't know if you haven't caught on yet, or are being deliberately obtuse, but the fact remains: legal disability has nothing to do with whether or not a transaction is a straw purchase.

If your neighbor sees that you're going to the store and hands you a five to pick him up a gallon of milk, he would be the actual purchaser of the milk: his money, his milk, with you as an intermediary conducting the transaction on his behalf. Same as if you remember him saying he's out of milk, so you pick it up for him knowing he'll pay you back.

If purchasing milk required a sworn statement that you were the actual purchaser, then that would be just as illegal, for exactly the same reason.

KBCraig said:

WW, You keep repeating this, so I don't know if you haven't caught on yet, or are being deliberately obtuse, but the fact remains: legal disability has nothing to do with whether or not a transaction is a straw purchase.

If your neighbor sees that you're going to the store and hands you a five to pick him up a gallon of milk, he would be the actual purchaser of the milk: his money, his milk, with you as an intermediary conducting the transaction on his behalf. Same as if you remember him saying he's out of milk, so you pick it up for him knowing he'll pay you back.

If purchasing milk required a sworn statement that you were the actual purchaser, then that would be just as illegal, for exactly the same reason.

Click to expand...

Who would be buying the milk at the grocery store?

WalkingWolf said:

Who would be buying the milk at the grocery store?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Whose money, and whose milk?

If the person conducting the transaction is doing so on behalf of someone else, then they are an agent for the actual purchaser, not the actual purchaser.

KBCraig said:

Irrelevant. Whose money, and whose milk?

If the person conducting the transaction is doing so on behalf of someone else, then they are an agent for the actual purchaser, not the actual purchaser.

Click to expand...

I ask again WHO is purchasing/buying the milk at the store?

If the purchaser is robbed in the parking lot at the store, who is the complainant?

KBCraig said:

Irrelevant. Whose money, and whose milk?

If the person conducting the transaction is doing so on behalf of someone else, then they are an agent for the actual purchaser, not the actual purchaser.

Click to expand...

I can see WW's point.

The money belongs to the person at the store and when they make the transaction then the milk becomes property of the person at the store. That person then makes a similar transaction when he gets to his neighbor. Intending to make another transaction doesn't preclude the person at the store from being the purchaser/owner.

Supposing that the person at the store is acting as an agent would only be relevant if the agent were contracted. If there is a contract then there is compensation. Is the neighbor paying an agent fee?

It's a crime to buy cigarettes or alcohol for someone under age, i.e. a straw purchase.

XD40sc said:

It's a crime to buy cigarettes or alcohol for someone under age, i.e. a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

The person on the other end was a FFL and completely lawful to buy a firearm from a individual. What happened was a LEO bought a firearm and then sold it to a FFL for a profit, though it was planned IMO it was perfectly legal. People buy several C&R all the time with the intent to keep the best and sell the rest. Some people go in on a group purchase of firearms from a online distribute for the same reason. Once they buy the firearm LEGALLY it is theirs to resell. The question on the 4473 is stupid, as well as a 5th amendment violation. Of course the person plunking down the money IS the buyer. And the selling FFL WILL be asked that question in court, once the selling FFL answers truthfully the case is out the window.

XD40sc said:

It's a crime to buy cigarettes or alcohol for someone under age, i.e. a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

State law vs fed law... Different language in each. Not a valid comparison.

WalkingWolf said:

SNIP

The question on the 4473 is stupid, as well as a 5th amendment violation. SNIP

Click to expand...

This is the most important point of this thread.

An answer given under duress (illegal question that threatens to void your sale) is not valid nor prosecutable, in my opinion.

That said, buying for someone who is NOT ABLE to buy is clearly a crime and people should be punished for that.

MAC702 said:

An answer given under duress (illegal question that threatens to void your sale) is not valid nor prosecutable, in my opinion.

That said, buying for someone who is NOT ABLE to buy is clearly a crime and people should be punished for that.

Click to expand...

That was not the case though, the only reason the FFL was not able to buy was not due to law, but manufacturer special deal. Which BTW in some states is illegal to give special price preference to a public official. One of the first rules that was taught as a LEO, as it happens a lot, is not except discounts based on authority of public employment. The whole thing is a fiasco, and a waste of tax payer dollars.

The manufacturer created this problem while essentially setting up sales as bribes to LEO's regarding purchases of personal firearms.

Do you mean deals like Glock blue-labels? If so, which States? Do you have cites? Or, at least, one cite for one State?

I sure hope Ohio has such a law, cuz if I can stop blue label sales here, I can increase our sales!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

MAC702 said:

An answer given under duress (illegal question that threatens to void your sale) is not valid nor prosecutable, in my opinion.

That said, buying for someone who is NOT ABLE to buy is clearly a crime and people should be punished for that.

Click to expand...

...and of course the only people "not able" in a free republic are minors and those in actual custody of the state.

eye95 said:

Do you mean deals like Glock blue-labels? If so, which States? Do you have cites? Or, at least, one cite for one State?

I sure hope Ohio has such a law, cuz if I can stop blue label sales here, I can increase our sales!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

I don't think I even have my notes for UOI, but it depends on courts and prosecutors willingness to prosecute officers for official misconduct. Almost every state has misconduct and bribery laws. Even taking a food discount is considered misconduct. It is a premise that has been overlooked for years, or accepted that police officers get special privileges for being police officers. Which means that the person, corporation, business that offers these perks expects something in return, even if it is something simple as extra security. For Glock it would be an endorsement to the public, which Glock uses, which also is illegal gain. It also affects small departments that do no use bids to buy firearms. It is no longer who gives the best product for the lowest bid, but who gives favors.

Special dispensation to a government official no matter how small is a bribe. But that aside there is no crime in this instance other then the special price the LEO received. He was in fact the buyer, even though he had a profit making deal in the wings. If they are to charge him with misconduct then then must charge the selling FFL with bribery.

WalkingWolf said:

I ask again WHO is purchasing/buying the milk at the store?

If the purchaser is robbed in the parking lot at the store, who is the complainant?

Click to expand...

The person who was robbed would be the complainant for being robbed -- it has no bearing on whose property was stolen.

If you borrowed my watch and were robbed of it, would your position be that you weren't really robbed just because it was my property?